Aces High Bulletin Board
Special Events Forums => Friday Squad Operations => Topic started by: Imoutfishing on April 26, 2008, 03:03:50 AM
-
I have to say this was an agresive set of FSO's well done.
The only thing that may have made this frame a bit better for a select few squads would have been something to shoot at :) I do belive the Allied targets happen to be a bit far spread as well there was no reason to defend any Allied target's.
What this did was simply set up a basic strategy of lamb basting one side of the map by the Allies while just tickling the the other target's they "had to hit".
As it happens the Nightmare's happen to be in a position to see the tolken attack's by the Allies. That ended up being ment a lot of flying around with no reason to be there. I let my squadies land and head to the MA with no question asked due to the narrow chance they might see something to shoot at :)
I'm not going to pass judgement on any FSO (thank god you guys put these up for us to enjoy) but the Allied side won from where I sit. They bored 63 pilots to death :)
I would like to point out that this is a personal account of the Back To Tokyo FSO and is in no means intended to infuse a debate.
MGD
-
I'm taking it you weren't the 63 pilots that cost us dearly this frame.
<S> Imperial Japanese Army and Navy pilots.
Herder ... I let you down, man.
http://s257.photobucket.com/albums/hh204/arlogu3/?action=view¤t=6c54f70f.pbr
-
The biggest problem with the setup was, as has been previously stated, the Japanese were entirely on defense. They had 200 pure fighters they could put in the air, while the Allies had to have a minimum of 60 TBMs, and a sizable portion of the fighter force was needed to roll heavy in order to provide enough striking power to get the job done. This made it very easy for the Axis to put a MASSIVE CAP at high altitude and just plain overwhelm any Allied escorts through weight of numbers.
-
It seems that every time we do a "US attacks Japan" FSO or scenerio that the US side gets beat very badly.
A few things that lead to this are:
1) "Overall numbers". I would think that 200 defenders against 200 attackers is not the way it would have been planned way back in 1944-1945. The ratio should be 2.5 to 3 to 1 in favor of attackers.
2) "The fact that the targets are known prior to the attack". There should be 9 or so targets, 2 of which must be attacked and bonus points given for additional targets each frame. This would be more realistic. It would force the defenders to spread out and search for incomming attacks and not just sit and wait for the attack they know must come. It would also enable the attackers to do a fighter sweep or 2 because all fighters would not have to be heavy.
3) "The Plane Mix". During 1944 there just wasnt that many KI-61's, KI-84's and N1K2's available. The Air Forces of Japan were decimated by this time and the pilots were not the elite that flew from 1939 to 1943, they were mostly low time pilots flying aircraft that suffered from unreliable engines in aircraft that were built without "Quality Control" being given even a second thought. During the war there were almost 11000 Zekes built and only 2600-2700 Tony's, 3400-3500 Franks, 400 N1K2's. Given these numbers it would seem that 60-70% of the Japanese fighter force would be a mix of A6M-2's, A6M-3's, and A6M-5's, 10-15% KI-61-I's, 15-20% KI-84's, and 5% N1K2's. The US mix is fine as there were almost 10000 F4U's and TBM/TBF's built and more than 12000 F6F's completed during the war. Given these facts there should be no more than 10 N1K2's for instance and at least 100 Zeke's ( including MANY A6M-2's) in a force of 200.
4) "All aircraft of both sides takeoff at T-00". The Japanese just didnt have the gas necessary to train let alone have all their fighters up at the same time. THIS WAY OF RUNNING AN EVENT REALLY NEEDS TO BE CHANGED. Only 5-10% of the defenders a/c should be allowed to be airborne prior to detecting an attack. Alot of effort is put into achieving surprise. No CO in his right mind would commit to an attack where the enemy had advance warning and was waiting.
These are just my observations and not meant as anything other than constructive in nature.
If any CM would like to hear more I would be glad to design a FSO with all these things taken into account and submit that to him/her. I also understand the "fun factor" and the need for all participants to see action. But I also believe that most here enjoy the realism of an FSO/Scenerio and really wouldnt mind revamping the rules if said realism was enhanced.
Please let me know if any CM or Designer would like to exchange ideas.
-
I would be happy to talk with you.
I would rather talk by VOX, what times are you available to meet in the MA?
-
It seems that every time we do a "US attacks Japan" FSO or scenerio that the US side gets beat very badly.
This is only the second time we have ever ran "US Attacks Japan" Scenario, the first one we ran was called Ketsu-Go. And it ended in marginal Allied Victory.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,197296.0.html
-
We have never done it in an FSO, but there have been instances in scenarios where radar and controllers were given to one side(BOB) or and idea like the Ruhr scenario. Also maybe a request to hitech could be made to allow a person to only up once thereby allowing departures at anytime after T+0 for aircraft that remained on the ground until detection. I am a big fan of reality in these FSO and not schedualed engagments. I love FSO in all of its forms, these are just some of my thoughts on the subject.
Vlkyrie1
-
How long are you guys willing to sit in the tower on Friday Nights? 15, 30, 45 minutes?
-
Joker: The Ki-61 is a 1942 design. The Ki-84 is a 1944 design. The N1k2 is the latest design the game has in the planeset, I think.
So you don't think they'd have 1944 designed planes in a 1944 setup? They built 3500 Ki-84s in about a year and a half (less maybe, I don't know exact dates).
While there were quality standards dropping, some of these are modeled in (note we don't have the super-boosted Ki-84 like UbiSoft does? We have modeled the IJA fuel quality rather than US fuel quality).
As for fuel, they had so much fuel they could test jet engines, they could develop and produce many thousands of late-war fighters, put them into action, and STILL field countless kamikaze planes (which still need fuel) as well as nonstop home defense sorties against the incoming US bombers. Fuel wasn't an issue.
You may feel the planeset is unbalanced. I disagree. Given the choice, the US rides are better than Japanese ones. Don't get me wrong I love the Ki-84, but when an F6F dives past it at 500mph (from 20k to the deck) there's no way a Ki84 can follow. Also the Ki61 is exceedingly slow at all alts and sucks above 15k. The Ki84 has a terrible drop in power (and speed/climb) between 8k and 18k (that's a pretty huge band, I tellyawhut). While the N1k2 holds up in a dive better it has an even worse power dip on this same band.
On the other hand, the US planes have magical flaps (in the F4u), speed brake gears, heavy ord capabilities, much better high alt performance, almost as good climb rate (F6F is only 500fpm behind Ki84 climb rate), turn amazingly well at high speeds, dive superbly at very high speeds, can sustain many solid hits with no damage, can get a lot more kills for the ammunition supplied, and when flown right have a bit of an edge over the axis planes: speed.
I don't disagree that perhaps the setup needs to be changed. However it's not because of the planes used.
P.S. We had many folks in A6M5s, which are obsolete compared to Hellcats and Corsairs. Ki61s are nice to fly but slow as molasses and have very small ammo levels. We had our fair share of handicaps.
-
It seems that every time we do a "US attacks Japan" FSO or scenerio that the US side gets beat very badly.
A few things that lead to this are:
1) "Overall numbers". I would think that 200 defenders against 200 attackers is not the way it would have been planned way back in 1944-1945. The ratio should be 2.5 to 3 to 1 in favor of attackers.
After frame 1, the sides were set at 60% USN, 40% IJA/IJN. Turnout in frame 2 allowed us to approach those numbers. Strong Japanese turnout and weak Allied turnout in Frame 3 made it more like 55%/45%. Ultimately, the adjustments made after Frame 1 were designed to give the USN approx. 60 more pilots a frame. Ultimately, we look to balance the engagements. While 30 versus 10 may be tactically sound, it makes for poor play, as those that get gang-banged are not going to either be thrilled or interested in coming back.
3) "The Plane Mix". During 1944 there just wasnt that many KI-61's, KI-84's and N1K2's available.
While it may be an accurate historical representation, it would be completely frustrating for those on the Japanese side. We're looking for balanced engagements here, where either side has the ability to win depending on their tactics, skill, and luck. We're not going to run a Turkey Shoot. You'll run out of players to fly against if you try and replicate history this way.
4) "All aircraft of both sides takeoff at T-00". The Japanese just didnt have the gas necessary to train let alone have all their fighters up at the same time. THIS WAY OF RUNNING AN EVENT REALLY NEEDS TO BE CHANGED. Only 5-10% of the defenders a/c should be allowed to be airborne prior to detecting an attack. Alot of effort is put into achieving surprise. No CO in his right mind would commit to an attack where the enemy had advance warning and was waiting.
First, 8th AF launched missions daily knowing the Germans had advanced warning, and would have interceptors waiting. Second, the Japanese had radar in real life, and would detect U.S. bombing raids some time in advance.
-
This is only the second time we have ever ran "US Attacks Japan" Scenario, the first one we ran was called Ketsu-Go. And it ended in marginal Allied Victory.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,197296.0.html
Nef,
Over the years I seem to remember a few more, one was a Scenerio and I seem to remember a few FSO's where the Allies were tasked with attacking the Japanese home islands. In any event I may or may not be correct but it just seems like the frames always end up badly for Allied forces.
How long are you guys willing to sit in the tower on Friday Nights? 15, 30, 45 minutes?
I am not sure that people would be willing to wait very long but in the past we have used staggered departure times. A wait of 45 mins would be too large but having 25% depart at T=0, then 50% at T+5, and the rest at T+10 (% is subject to change as needed) would not be that long a wait and might do the trick. The frame could be extended 10 mins to allow all to get the full 2 hours of fun if this was done.
And please dont take anything I typed as a whine. As always I appreciate all the effort put into these events by everyone involved. I made the post in an effort to try and improve our fun. I very much enjoy the events and still consider FSO and Scenerios the best part of AH.
-
And please dont take anything I typed as a whine. As always I appreciate all the effort put into these events by everyone involved. I made the post in an effort to try and improve our fun. I very much enjoy the events and still consider FSO and Scenerios the best part of AH.
Not at all, your comments are appreciated.
:aok
-
...In any event I may or may not be correct but it just seems like the frames always end up badly for Allied forces.
If we're merely comparing opinions here, I'll tell you that I believe the USN late-war plane set should dominate even the late-war Japanese fighters. However, the F6F and F4U aren't planes that the typical MA AH2 pilot are comfortable in, and the tactics and strategy necessary to win in FSO certainly aren't simple MA-type techniques. On the other hand, the same techniques that prove successful in the heavier, faster, U.S. aircraft in the MA (patience, preparation, and good situational awareness) will make them successful in FSO. I was a defender at A87 Friday night, and we were pummeled quickly, even though there were roughly 30-40 defenders there. Stampf's post in the other thread was a great example: a good plan, great execution, and some very effective tactics. From the receiving end, it was one of the best planned and executed attacks against a fixed target I've seen in two years of flying FSO's. As a result, without an overall numerical advantage (even though they created a localized one) they destroyed the objective, shot down a lot of defenders, and still managed to take a lot of aircraft home with them. Just an example of effective use of the late-war USN plane set.
I am not sure that people would be willing to wait very long but in the past we have used staggered departure times. A wait of 45 mins would be too large but having 25% depart at T=0, then 50% at T+5, and the rest at T+10 (% is subject to change as needed) would not be that long a wait and might do the trick. The frame could be extended 10 mins to allow all to get the full 2 hours of fun if this was done.
Given the climb speed of the Japanese aircraft, and the distance the USN aircraft needed to fly to target (I planned for T+45 minutes to be over the target during design), even a T+10 launch would not have mattered. Even a T+30 would have allowed the Ki-84 and N1K2 to climb to 25K and still have 5-10 minutes to sort themselves out before action started.
And please dont take anything I typed as a whine. As always I appreciate all the effort put into these events by everyone involved. I made the post in an effort to try and improve our fun. I very much enjoy the events and still consider FSO and Scenerios the best part of AH.
Received in the same manner as you intended.
-
And please dont take anything I typed as a whine. As always I appreciate all the effort put into these events by everyone involved. I made the post in an effort to try and improve our fun. I very much enjoy the events and still consider FSO and Scenerios the best part of AH.
I am not, I am just trying to understand and/or analyze every opinion, angle, truth, false, misconception or any other item posted on this FSO BBS.
As for previous FSOs using the Japan map, There has only been two FSOs. But... there has been a Scenario and a couple snapshots possibly. As for Pacific FSOs, there has been numerous of course, maybe your thinking about one of those?
As for delayed launches, I'm not quite sure that would work, After all 5 and 10 minutes is not very long, not long enough to make any difference in the last FSO, not enough in the next FSO either. The fields or targets would have to be really close to feel that time difference.
-
Stoney,
You are probably right, the delayed takeoff of 10 mins would not have mattered. I was just brainstorming at a way to recreate the fact that the entire defending airforce would in reality not have been airborne at the same time. I am looking for a way to avoid the "all aircraft launch at T+0" way that we kick off each frame. The playabliity aspect and the time constraints need to be ironed out. A great point is that we still cant limit persons to 1 life in the arena setup and having staggered takeoff times would make it impossible for CM's to police those who may want to reup after a death.
Your point about late war is a very good one. I also believe that the US aircraft are more capable. Maybe it was the strategy used in my sector during this FSO that was faulty. I flew with the Japanese in a N1K2. At A7 a few of us intercepted the Allied strike and decimated them in less than 8 mins. It seemed that each of the 5 planes I killed fell apart very quickly with very few hits. 1 F6, 2 each F4 and TBM, less than 5 mins, around 200 rounds. I am not a great shot, they just dont seem that durable that it makes a great difference. In all 3 frames it seemed like the USN was wiped from the arena before endframe.
I know you tried to get a 60-40 split but from the numbers I saw on AHevents we never approached a 60/40 split. The closest we came was frame 2 where the Allies had 53% and the Japanese had 47% (216-245). The other frames were 1: IJN 50.55 to USN 49.5% and 3: IJN 49% to USN 51%. A 60-40 split might have made for a better FSO.
I guess I can just wait for the next USN/IJN FSO and see how that one goes. I have a few ideas I am going to run by Sled for Pacific FSO's that havent been done yet.
Thanks again for your replies.
-
Joker I want to jump in here and explain a few things. Often players have some misconceptions about FSO and how they ‘should’ be ran. First though let me say this is not a criticism on my part on your post, but more of an attempt to explain why things are managed and designed the way they are and why many of your ideas would not work.
1) "Overall numbers". I would think that 200 defenders against 200 attackers is not the way it would have been planned way back in 1944-1945. The ratio should be 2.5 to 3 to 1 in favor of attackers.
In general you are right. Most designs in FSO would favor the attackers in numbers, but it would greatly depend on the year, theatre, and the plane set. Attackers would have to give up alt, position, and focus on a ground target before becoming offensive, but we will never have a 3 to 1 favor for the attackers in FSO. In fact we would never even have a 2 to 1 design in FSO. With 450 players you would have 150 defending pilots VS 300 attacking pilots. It would result in a wash. Even an inexperience player would see that the defending side would to totally routed and destroyed along with the target they were supposed to defend. The variables that go in to balancing sides are given a lot of thought by the FSO team. Never perfect, but has been in use for years and works well.
2) "The fact that the targets are known prior to the attack". There should be 9 or so targets, 2 of which must be attacked and bonus points given for additional targets each frame. This would be more realistic. It would force the defenders to spread out and search for incomming attacks and not just sit and wait for the attack they know must come.
This is a common misconception for players. I have even had CM’s argue this point, but the growth, success, and popularity of FSO has in large part gone to this particular design element.
From the beginning players in FSO (what was called Tour of Duty the first couple years) were guaranteed a few things, one of which was ‘action’. What you suggest, 9 targets and only 2 must be attacked would lead to the death of FSO. You have to understand that FSO is not a scenario and never will be. FSO and scenarios are completely different animals and have entirely different design elements that cannot be mated. In a scenario you have no idea what will be attacked, when it will be attacked and how it will be attacked. Consequently you could have players fly around for 2 or more hours and not see any action, let alone fire a shot. I have experienced this first hand. This is not a dig on scenarios, but simply a design fact. Yes some scenarios may have a much greater chance of engagement with the enemy, but in FSO it is guaranteed. The ONLY way someone will not see action in a FSO frame is if:
1. A squad is a no show.
2. The CiC does not follow his objectives.
There is a 3rd possibility, and that is if a squad is wiped out before they reach their target, but that is very rare. In the 7 plus years we have been running FSO’s I can only recall that happening a half a dozen times or so. More often it was the 1st or 2nd reason I listed.
I have said over the years I have had a saying I apply to events. The quickest way to kill an event is lack of action. Because both sides know what to attack and what to defend in every FSO frame players will never have to worry about lack of action. Some will say it is too canned, but that ridiculous. The possibilities in FSO are still wide-ranging. If you are defending a target you don’t know:
- When it will be attacked (with in the 1st hour)
- What type of enemy aircraft you will engage
- What altitude the enemy will be
- What direction the enemy will come from
- How many enemy aircraft will attack
- If their will be any sweeps, diversions, waves in the attack
Despite the fact that FSO gives both sides what targets will be attacked and what has to be defended players have fun time and time again. They have fun because FSO offers enough variables to keep each side and player guessing what will happen in the next 10 minutes.
3) "The Plane Mix". During 1944 there just wasnt that many KI-61's, KI-84's and N1K2's available. The Air Forces of Japan were decimated by this time and the pilots were not the elite that flew from 1939 to 1943, they were mostly low time pilots flying aircraft that suffered from unreliable engines in aircraft that were built without "Quality Control" being given even a second thought. During the war there were almost 11000 Zekes built and only 2600-2700 Tony's, 3400-3500 Franks, 400 N1K2's. Given these numbers it would seem that 60-70% of the Japanese fighter force would be a mix of A6M-2's, A6M-3's, and A6M-5's, 10-15% KI-61-I's, 15-20% KI-84's, and 5% N1K2's. The US mix is fine as there were almost 10000 F4U's and TBM/TBF's built and more than 12000 F6F's completed during the war. Given these facts there should be no more than 10 N1K2's for instance and at least 100 Zeke's ( including MANY A6M-2's) in a force of 200.
I appreciate your desire for historical accuracy as far as the manufactured plane set and what would or would not be available in a Pacific plane set. Nevertheless what we settle on for an FSO design will always sacrifice historical accuracy for playability. In other words the ‘fun factor’ is paramount in a FSO design. I don’t see what fun it would be for Axis in the last FSO using your suggestion. First we would have had about 150 Axis aircraft (this is just using the 2 to 1, not even the 3 to 1 you mentioned) VS about 300 Allied aircraft. The Axis would have A6M2’s, A6M5’s, KI61’s, Ki84’s, and just a few N1K2’s. What you suggest above would give the majority of the plane set to be the A6M2’s and A6M5’s and only 8 N1K2’s (5% that you stated above). Then a few 61’s and 84’s. I am sorry. This would not work. I don’t see what chance the above Axis plane set would have against F4U’s, F6F’s and TBM’s.
4) "All aircraft of both sides takeoff at T-00". The Japanese just didnt have the gas necessary to train let alone have all their fighters up at the same time. THIS WAY OF RUNNING AN EVENT REALLY NEEDS TO BE CHANGED. Only 5-10% of the defenders a/c should be allowed to be airborne prior to detecting an attack. Alot of effort is put into achieving surprise. No CO in his right mind would commit to an attack where the enemy had advance warning and was waiting.
Well, we have been doing it for many years. Much of what I said above explains why it works. We can’t and will not have players sit on the runway for 15, 30, or 45 minutes. Adolph Galland said “Their element is to attack, to track, to hunt, and to destroy the enemy.
Only in this way can the eager and skillful fighter pilot display his ability.
Tie him to a narrow and confined task, rob him of his initiative,
and you take away from him the best and most valuable qualities he posses:
aggressive spirit, joy of action, and the passion of the hunter. This touches on the fun factor. Let the defender seek out the enemy. Send out scouts, and with some luck maybe they can find them before they are over the target. CiC’s enjoy the planning end of this and the player certainly enjoy looking for enemy rather than counting the trees at the end of the runway.
I would be more than happy to discuss this with you at length. I appreciate your feed back, but much of it will not work with FSO and lend to its continued success.
-
King speaking...
Spot on DD. +1
-
In general you are right. Most designs in FSO would favor the attackers in numbers, but it would greatly depend on the year, theatre, and the plane set. Attackers would have to give up alt, position, and focus on a ground target before becoming offensive, but we will never have a 3 to 1 favor for the attackers in FSO. In fact we would never even have a 2 to 1 design in FSO. With 450 players you would have 150 defending pilots VS 300 attacking pilots. It would result in a wash. Even an inexperience player would see that the defending side would to totally routed and destroyed along with the target they were supposed to defend. The variables that go in to balancing sides are given a lot of thought by the FSO team. Never perfect, but has been in use for years and works well.
I agree DD, 3 to 1 odds are out of the question for playability sake. I used that ratio because its the accepted ratio used for any attacking force to have a reasonable chance of sucess in both land and air warfare. But I also am well aware that we often use the 60-40 split in our game. It is my contention that this ratio needs to be policed if the FSO is going to play out according to design. In this past scenerio it was not. The Japs had a numbers advantage in 1 frame and we were very close to 50-50 in the other 2 frames.
This is a common misconception for players. I have even had CM’s argue this point, but the growth, success, and popularity of FSO has in large part gone to this particular design element.
From the beginning players in FSO (what was called Tour of Duty the first couple years) were guaranteed a few things, one of which was ‘action’. What you suggest, 9 targets and only 2 must be attacked would lead to the death of FSO. You have to understand that FSO is not a scenario and never will be. FSO and scenarios are completely different animals and have entirely different design elements that cannot be mated. In a scenario you have no idea what will be attacked, when it will be attacked and how it will be attacked. Consequently you could have players fly around for 2 or more hours and not see any action, let alone fire a shot. I have experienced this first hand. This is not a dig on scenarios, but simply a design fact. Yes some scenarios may have a much greater chance of engagement with the enemy, but in FSO it is guaranteed. The ONLY way someone will not see action in a FSO frame is if:
1. A squad is a no show.
2. The CiC does not follow his objectives.
There is a 3rd possibility, and that is if a squad is wiped out before they reach their target, but that is very rare. In the 7 plus years we have been running FSO’s I can only recall that happening a half a dozen times or so. More often it was the 1st or 2nd reason I listed.
I have said over the years I have had a saying I apply to events. The quickest way to kill an event is lack of action. Because both sides know what to attack and what to defend in every FSO frame players will never have to worry about lack of action. Some will say it is too canned, but that ridiculous. The possibilities in FSO are still wide-ranging. If you are defending a target you don’t know:
- When it will be attacked (with in the 1st hour)
- What type of enemy aircraft you will engage
- What altitude the enemy will be
- What direction the enemy will come from
- How many enemy aircraft will attack
- If their will be any sweeps, diversions, waves in the attack
Despite the fact that FSO gives both sides what targets will be attacked and what has to be defended players have fun time and time again. They have fun because FSO offers enough variables to keep each side and player guessing what will happen in the next 10 minutes.
I understand your point about the need for people to see action and that FSO is very popular because of it. The number of participants attest to that fact. But if this means that the action the bomber pilots see is enemy aircraft blastin them out of the sky at a better than 80% clip then I imagine they wont continue to show up. In this past FSO during all 3 frames we saw 115 TBM's take to the air, 93 were destroyed. 80.5%. Wheres the fun in that for those guys that invested 3 to 6 hours of their life? Not very realistic either but we are sacrificing realism for the fighter pilots enjoyment. BTW in no single frame were the required 60 TBM's used. I think we both know the reason for that fact.
I appreciate your desire for historical accuracy as far as the manufactured plane set and what would or would not be available in a Pacific plane set. Nevertheless what we settle on for an FSO design will always sacrifice historical accuracy for playability. In other words the ‘fun factor’ is paramount in a FSO design. I don’t see what fun it would be for Axis in the last FSO using your suggestion. First we would have had about 150 Axis aircraft (this is just using the 2 to 1, not even the 3 to 1 you mentioned) VS about 300 Allied aircraft. The Axis would have A6M2’s, A6M5’s, KI61’s, Ki84’s, and just a few N1K2’s. What you suggest above would give the majority of the plane set to be the A6M2’s and A6M5’s and only 8 N1K2’s (5% that you stated above).
Again, I didnt mean for my numbers to be a must use ratio. I only meant that because the use of N1K2's and KI-84's was so off the scale that those aircraft ruined the fun for others, i.e. the Allied forces, espicially the TBM's, and me (and I flew a N1K2 in all 3 Frames). In the 1st frame, 1/3 of the defending force was N1K2's which killed almost 1/2 of all allied players. A little tweeking in the max number of these aircraft would have meant a big difference to the overall setup. I hate to beat a dead horse here but I like the challenge of changing history with skill and cunning, not because I was part of the team lucky enough to get the best ride out of all proportion to its actual use in the war. I do not expect you to limit the planeset to just 8 N1k2's, but in this case, almost 70 in frame 1 was an error on the opposite end.
I would be more than happy to discuss this with you at length. I appreciate your feed back, but much of it will not work with FSO and lend to its continued success.
DD, I can see why much of what I suggest will not work. I can appreciate the success that FSO has had since its inception. I have played in almost every FSO since its inception and have enjoyed them totally. The increase in attendence month after month speaks for itself and the fine job the CM and Design teams do. I also know that FSO is an evolving work. There are always ways to improve on an already great design. My only reason for making these suggestions is selfish in that I want to continue to play and enjoy FSO.
In my opinion this past FSO was a rout not because of skill but in large part due to setup. If we can change but a few small variables then we can ensure the continued growth of this venue. If we do not and get a steady diet of the same then we will surely lose it.
-
I had a blast! I thought it was pretty much realistic on the setup as i believe that was one of the let's just show them we can do it attacks on japan. Allies had limited cv planes and your going against the homeland so it seemed right to me that it should be even if not overmatched by the japanese. A lot of the lack of attackers had to do with how the allies planned there attacks and the cm's don't have control over that. I know first 2 frames we were in the thick of the allied attack, but for the 3rd one we really only saw a token group get through. A lot of this had to do with great jobs done by the defenders and just a bad attack plan by the allies. IMO.
AKsleepy
-
I will throw a couple of my thoughts about this last event out there.
The numbers for this last event were adjusted for frames 2 and 3 to be, ~200 Axis vs ~270 Allied. However the Allied showed with low numbers in both frames and that was a major contributing factor to their demise. The Admins can only base their assignment of numbers based on what the squad commitments say, if 50 pilots decide not to show up, there is not much the Admin can do about that. If the Allied had showed with full numbers, frames 2 and 3 probably would have been a much more even contest.
From my point of view, (I was Axis) the Allied seem to come in and lose their ALT to quickly. We both started and nearly the same ALT, but upon engagement, I would often look down to see most of the Allied AC below us <20K. Which played to the strength of the Axis AC.
The only set-up change I might make to this event would be to reduce the amount of Ki84s and N1K's, to say 40-50 each, but that would be the only real set-up change. And if the Allied would show with full numbers then it might not be necessary.
Low numbers of TBM's? Yep, unfortunately we do have some "fair weather flyer's" in FSO. If they get the plane they want then they show up, if they don't they stay in the MA. That is unfortunate, as you need to take the good with the bad in FSO, and be willing to attend even when you don't get the ride you want. Again, with full numbers, this would have gone much better for the Allied.
:)
-----------
edit:
I just did the math for the numbers in Back to Tokyo.
min max
Allied 226 / 304 ~56%
Axis 170 / 237 ~44%
-
I also know that FSO is an evolving work. There are always ways to improve on an already great design.
:aok We are on the same page here Joker. :) Thanks for caring enough to post about it.
-
Low numbers of TBM's? Yep, unfortunately we do have some "fair weather flyer's" in FSO. If they get the plane they want then they show up, if they don't they stay in the MA. That is unfortunate, as you need to take the good with the bad in FSO, and be willing to attend even when you don't get the ride you want. Again, with full numbers, this would have gone much better for the Allied.
You said it brother. :aok
-
I just did the math for the numbers in Back to Tokyo.
min max
Allied 226 / 304 ~56%
Axis 170 / 237 ~44%
My adjustments were made based on Frame 1 turnout, not the total min/max. I'll make a note in the future...:aok
-
My adjustments were made based on Frame 1 turnout, not the total min/max. I'll make a note in the future...:aok
I understand, I was just posting the Min and Max numbers for both sides in frames 2 and 3. Just for reference.
-
The numbers for this last event were adjusted for frames 2 and 3 to be, ~200 Axis vs ~270 Allied. However the Allied showed with low numbers in both frames and that was a major contributing factor to their demise. The Admins can only base their assignment of numbers based on what the squad commitments say, if 50 pilots decide not to show up, there is not much the Admin can do about that. If the Allied had showed with full numbers, frames 2 and 3 probably would have been a much more even contest.
Would it be possible (and even useful) to try to devise and implement some type of last minute adjustment to properly balance the side ratio if needed? I know orders are sent out ahead to squads, they want stay on their side, take up a certain ride, etc., but mighten there be a workable method to move a squad (of roughly the right size and admittedly at the last minute) from one side to the other to bring numbers more into the intended balance? Said squad(s) would not be so imposed upon again for many cycles thereafter.
Even having only recent and limited understanding of the guidelines and operation of FSO, I can see difficulties in this, but offer the suggestion in case the brighter, experienced prevailing minds of FSO can find a way to make it workable.