Aces High Bulletin Board
Special Events Forums => Friday Squad Operations => Topic started by: Dantoo on July 10, 2009, 11:19:07 PM
-
This current FSO (like all PTO events) is clearly limited by the plane set. The fact that we are using Japanese army aircraft from carriers underscores the paucity. It's a good move though, because it brings some balance to the event. We don't do historic re-enactments in FSO. We put a thin veneer of history over a setup to help with immersion, but the idea is to have everybody get a chance to do their job and then get home (if I understand it correctly).
Balance is about giving each side an equal chance of achieving their given task. If the tasks are different then the tools are accordingly different. If one side gets a harder task then they should get a greater number or a better quality of "tools" to do the job. Balance, it's a whole of effort thing.
Playability is about the efficacy of a particular tool. Can this ride do the job asked of it? I can give an example. One FSO, far far away in time, my squad was given m16s to attack a vbase held by panzers. The designer said it was "historic". I said "balls". It was unplayable, as clearly the tools weren't applicable to the job given. There was no or little satisfaction for the guys on either side. It was all over in 3 minutes.
This FSO series includes Vals and Kates probably because of the aforementioned paucity of Japanese Naval assets in the game.
At what point can you simply say that the veneer of immersion provided by using such types is thoroughly stripped away by their glaring unplayability. Being tasked to attack a tough target defended by highly superior aircraft, in a deficient ride, with deficient numbers, seriously lacks playability. If there is no chance to do your job and survive there is no satisfaction.
Can we come up with a framework for designers that allows as much use of the plane set as we are gifted, but within guidelines that doesn't leave one feeling, that when the orders are made, you are handing out a miserable deal to some poor squad "for historic reasons".
-
On the other hand, there comes a point where you can help balance a side to the point where it starts to kill the immersion. I hate seeing Ki-67s in place of G4Ms, especially in early and mid-war setups before the Ki-67 was introduced. The Japanese DO need a level bomber, especially when you consider the poorer strike capability of its single-engine aircraft compared to the American iron, (particularly as you get into the midwar period) but the Ki-67 is at the OPPOSITE end of the spectrum.
-
This current FSO (like all PTO events) is clearly limited by the plane set....
Granted, the plane set is not all-inclusive. And it never will be, most likely. Do we then ask the FSO godz to prohibit setups that require substitutions? Making an absolute rule of "no substitutions" would certainly put an end to debates about the relative merits of vehicles (i.e. your tale of the M-16 vs. Pzkw.IV fight, which sounds like it was a real drag, IMHO).
If stand-ins were forbidden, FSO set-ups would be pretty limited, neh? Personally, so long as some semblance of logic prevails, I'd rather hold my nose and endure the occasional stand-in. I'd rather see some variety - albeit with compromised historical accuracy - than play the same few set-ups over and over. But that's just me.
And kudos to you for starting a reasonable discussion, Dantoo! :salute
-
There were a few good cv battles in the solomons and we have every cv plane needed for them for each side.
-
I hate seeing Ki-67s in place of G4Ms, .
I hate when that happens too. Dreadful, dreadful stuff..
-
I don't know what's wrong with this picture. Reasonable and Dantoo. Nah. :D
Drano
-
Events will never be accurate until we can get some holes filled in the plane sets. The I-16 and 239 are a great help.
But many more aircraft are needed. Betty and Sally would be nice. Trying to satisfy the Historical Freaks such as myself
and the MA run and gunners is a challenge.
The current plane set favors the ETO at this time. The Med also to a great degree.
In my case making a list would be redundant. I've done it many times. If you will notice when FSO night comes
the MAs' drain significantly and the majority of the population shifts to the SEA. That should be a hint to which is
most popular.
Hajo
-
... If you will notice when FSO night comes the MAs' drain significantly and the majority of the population shifts to the SEA ...
Amen! Let's all keep spreadin' the word about how much fun we have in FSO. :aok
...and keep posting the "missing" planes over in the Wishlist forum. ;)
-
(http://The current plane set favors the ETO at this time. The Med also to a great degree.)
I keep saying it, you'd almost think there wasn't a war in the Pacific at all with all the media focus on Europe.
DESPERATELY Needed:
Ki-43 (PRIORITY AIRCRAFT!)
G4M (PRIORITY AIRCRAFT!)
Ki-21
Ki-27
A5M
D4Y
B6N
Would like, but not critical:
G3M
Ki-44
Ki-45
J2M
N1K2 (we have the N1K2-J)
A6M3 Models 32 and 22 (Model 22 would be a preference, but I could see the clipped-wing Model 32 because it would offer something distinctive from the A6M2 and A6M5)
Ki-100
B7A (actually faster and more maneuverable than the Zero. Small production numbers could make it a rare perk choice for the Japanese set)
Ki-48
Ki-30
Ki-49
P1Y
-
Saxman.....Amen.
-
Put a6m3 as critical
-
Dang, that B7A looks like fun:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aichi_B7A
-
Once upon a time, long ago, the FSO held an interesting world (virtual, that is) for me. In this world you might get a kill, you might get killed, and you might just as well survive a frame with no kills, never firing a shot, but being mixed up in the thick of it all the while.
The past many many months it has been nothing but 1-way trips. You can't finish the job, you can't make it back safely, there's almost never any real gameplay balance (later war setups are just as bad as early ones!). The entire thing stinks like a fish cannery.
I've stopped showing up at FSOs except on very special occassions (if I really want to fly "plane X") because it's going down the tubes, and has been steadily.
It's nothing but a deathmatch fragfest, and I stopped playing first person shooters online because that gets boring after you pass the age of 12. Why would I want to fly AH setups that wind up that way?
Answer is: I wouldn't.
So I don't.
That's my 1-man movement.
-
Put a6m3 as critical
laff
Performance wise it was no better than the A6M2. Few mph tops. It's not vital at all, aside from slight increase in ammo, and power dip at mid alts where the M2 doesn't have one.
-
(http://The current plane set favors the ETO at this time. The Med also to a great degree.)
I keep saying it, you'd almost think there wasn't a war in the Pacific at all with all the media focus on Europe.
DESPERATELY Needed:
Ki-43 (PRIORITY AIRCRAFT!)
G4M (PRIORITY AIRCRAFT!)
Ki-21
Ki-27
A5M
D4Y
B6N
Would like, but not critical:
G3M
Ki-44
Ki-45
J2M
N1K2 (we have the N1K2-J)
A6M3 Models 32 and 22 (Model 22 would be a preference, but I could see the clipped-wing Model 32 because it would offer something distinctive from the A6M2 and A6M5)
Ki-100
B7A (actually faster and more maneuverable than the Zero. Small production numbers could make it a rare perk choice for the Japanese set)
Ki-48
Ki-30
Ki-49
P1Y
We just don't need those. I'm sorry. You can't honestly tell me a Ki-49, Ki-30, Ki-48, etc is desperately needed in AH. These are planes that you really need to dig up when researching the war, whereas there are some more well known aircraft that are no brainers when it comes to being added.
-
Let's not get off topic. Dantoo started a great thread. Discussing ideas is a good thing.
-
I think you have a conflict in the sense that historical accuracy and good game play don't always go hand in hand. There were relatively few "fair fights" during WW2, especially in aviation. BoB was one and Kuban would be a second. You've got reasonable parity in the Med/ETO in 43 I think and maybe in the Solomons....
Adding the "correct" planes doesn't alter the realistic imbalance that occurred during much of the war. As it relates to the Japanese plane set I don't think we have a lot of gaps since the majority of the actions can be functionally covered. Obviously the Oscar is a big gap but the Judy less so since it was incapable of operating from most Japanese carriers left after the losses in 1942. The B6N2 also was primarily land based....
While historically inaccurate the inclusion of the B7A would combine a measure of historical accuracy (it did see combat) with enhanced game play and a very usable "main arena" niche plane. Obviously the Betty is required at some point for scenarios etc....
-
Dave, I told you on wishlist: READ MY WHOLE POST. I did NOT say those planes were "critical." In fact I specifically said they were NOT but would just be nice to have.
-
Like Sax I see a need for more Japanese AC.
Also I thought the A6M3 had self sealing fuel tanks and the A6M2 did not.
One FSO, far far away in time, my squad was given m16s to attack a vbase held by panzers. The designer said it was "historic".
Wow. I don’t ever remember one designed like that. Then again my memory is not perfect. For all I know that could have been one of my designs. (http://www.tech-faq.com/emoticons/row7/row__355.gif) (http://www.tech-faq.com/emoticons/row7/emoticons.shtml) All I can say it would never happen again. ;) I have always leaned toward playability when looking at designs rather than historical accuracy.
-
there was the one with M-8s vs. tigers.
NOT
-
there was the one with M-8s vs. tigers.
NOT
Yeah. I was in that one on the M8 side. Not much fun at all. However, that said, I have found the vast majority of FSO events to be a lot of fun as planned. Occasionally, there have been events that didn't go as planned that turned out to be less fun than they could have been, but overall I've enjoyed my participation in FSO and plan to continue.
This most recent frame was particularly fun for me and my Squadron mates. Even being on the axis side, the turkeys in that turkey shoot as it were, we did pretty good IMO. We knew going in that it was going to be rough on us, but with very capable escort by Saxman and VMF 251 Bucaneers, we actually sank the CV that was our target. Almost no one made it back, but we all had fun. And frankly, gentlemen, that's why I sink my hard earned dough into this game.
<S> to the 251st from all of us in Rolling Thunder and a <S> to the folks who take time out of their day to plan and arrange these events just so the rest of us can play. :salute
-
there was the one with M-8s vs. tigers
Had my doubts about that. Ghostdancer said he had one with Firefly's VS Tigers, but M8's were optional scouts.
I don't ever recall one with M8's pitted against Tigers and that was the only option.
-
My Tunisia design had Fireflies versus Tigers and with the option of also using M8s as scouts. Heavy tanks though were deployed by both sides. Also Husky had LVTs versus M8s and then in the last frame Fireflies and M8s versus Tigers and M8s. But I have never done a design with just M8s versus tanks.
-
I think the Battle of the Bulge this past year had a spawn limit on M4s, which left the Allies with M8s vs. Panzers by a particular time frame.
-
I think the Battle of the Bulge this past year had a spawn limit on M4s, which left the Allies with M8s vs. Panzers by a particular time frame.
Correct, M4s and Tigers were disabled at T+90
-
Here's the rub in my opinion, and it mainly affects the PTO setups, especially after the 1943 period when U.S. designs leapfrogged the IJN/IJA in technological superiority:
Even when we introduce the G4M and the Ki-43, the Japanese are at a disadvantage. The Ki-61, Ki-84, and N1K2 are the only aircraft in the planeset that are competitive with the mid-to-late USN aircraft. The torpedo and dive bombers perform so poorly, and are so fragile that they will never compete. Even designs like the Judy will be easy pickings for Corsairs and Hellcats. In my mind, there's simply no way around the qualitative advantage enjoyed by the US aircraft. It gets even worse when you include USAAF aircraft, especially the B-24, P-51D, etc. in the latewar period.
I desperately want to find ways to create balanced PTO setups, but from a design perspective, they are extremely difficult. We can't even have a early-war PTO setup without people remarking on how durable the F4F is compared to the A6M2's weaponry. From a historical standpoint, my personal opinion is that the IJA/IJN never had a chance in the air during WWII simply because they're designs couldn't compete, and by the time they had competitive designs, they lacked the industrial capacity to produce them.
So, my soap-boxing aside, the question at hand is how to design PTO setups that create a competitive atmosphere for both sides.
-
I dont know about you but I was in the turkey shoot. I feel that we the japanese had a strong chance for success we outnumbered our foe and struck strong. However I saw a note of discord after we had dropped the bombs. Some wanted to rtb and regroup I suppose and others YELLED We can do this we outnumber them. In the end I feel we suffered so catastrophically in the air to air is simply because we did not stick together as well as we perhaps should of. Those who decided to flee did not do so as a group but simply tried to break when they had a reasonable opening. however the beastly f6f with its beastly speed and power advantaged had the ability to pick apart the runners. I was one of the aces for the japanese with a staggering 2Kills and successful landing. I thought I had 3 assists and 1 kill but appears I managed to harass and pick on the same 2 f6f's However many of us used up our ammo fast and what not. I believe if we had worked on some better group tactics like a thatch weave etc we could have taken far more americans with us. Oh and I was also the very last low japanese pilot to escape. I forced 4 f6f's to OVER SHOOT me and ran like the dickens. The only other ally was about 10 or so k above me watching like a buzzard. I am merely lucky the f6f's did not persue me as they could have easily run me down. amazingly enough I took no dmg to parts but was merely riddled with bullets everywhere no dmg. I was 1 of the few in the KI 61 I am surprised the a6m's didnt fair better though. I for one see a6m's do amazingly well all the time in the main arena against f6f's and stuff. I am terrible in the a6m personally I stall it and wreck it bad. but I see people who can latch onto almost anything and never lose it in their a6ms
-
The japanese zekes we fought(353rd)came in low with ords.basically gave us the fight,we knocked out 20 as a squad but they barely got the cv. I think the zekes have to fight their fight together and not divided like greziz said
-
Here's the rub in my opinion, and it mainly affects the PTO setups, especially after the 1943 period when U.S. designs leapfrogged the IJN/IJA in technological superiority:
Even when we introduce the G4M and the Ki-43, the Japanese are at a disadvantage. The Ki-61, Ki-84, and N1K2 are the only aircraft in the planeset that are competitive with the mid-to-late USN aircraft. The torpedo and dive bombers perform so poorly, and are so fragile that they will never compete. Even designs like the Judy will be easy pickings for Corsairs and Hellcats. In my mind, there's simply no way around the qualitative advantage enjoyed by the US aircraft. It gets even worse when you include USAAF aircraft, especially the B-24, P-51D, etc. in the latewar period.
I desperately want to find ways to create balanced PTO setups, but from a design perspective, they are extremely difficult. We can't even have a early-war PTO setup without people remarking on how durable the F4F is compared to the A6M2's weaponry. From a historical standpoint, my personal opinion is that the IJA/IJN never had a chance in the air during WWII simply because they're designs couldn't compete, and by the time they had competitive designs, they lacked the industrial capacity to produce them.
So, my soap-boxing aside, the question at hand is how to design PTO setups that create a competitive atmosphere for both sides.
Incidentally, I'm sort of surprised to see a lack of land-based aircraft for the Japanese, as they were involved in the battle as well. Would have allowed small numbers of the more capable IJAAF fighters.
fudgums,
One thing I'm sure hurt the Japanese in several target areas was the mass discos that hit about 15mins into the frame. AKDogg's AAR bears witness to that, as that strike hit in three successive waves as a result and the AK's were able to pick them apart as they came in. The Allies could basically get right back in position if they discoed, but for the most part the Axis discos couldn't catch up to the original strike, and the original strike couldn't stop and wait for them. we had a number of discos in our strike as well, but fortunately our flight plan allowed our discos to "cut the corner" and had virtually reformed entirely by the time we made contact with the enemy, allowing our two strike package squadrons to make a more effective effort against the target while VMF-251 tangled with the CAP.
-
The thread is going well. :aok
I am not overly focussed upon what may have happened last week or what might happen next week. Rather, for the future guidance of design, I am wondering if there is some discussion to be made about what should be prioritised, historical accuracy or playability. Is this a false dilemma? Is there another way?
Again, I define playability as the opportunity to carry out one of the designer's set tasks and return home safely.
I do agree the plane set for the PTO is limited. In the continuing absence of further types, what should the designers do? Would the introduction of the Oscar (isolated example) change anything anyway? Should we develop a framework that we can work within, that gives a quality immersion experience but sacrifices all but a notional historical accuracy? Are we willing to warp the rigid bulwarks of history or is it yet a better idea to abandon the thought that you should be given a chance to "do the job".
-
From the posts made by the FSO Team overall, they choose to make the events playable than historically accurate. That's probably the best direction to take. In time, HTC will unleash more aircraft down the road. With each new aircraft will give more options to the design teams.
The PTO setups are difficult to make playable with the limited plane sets available. The ETO setups are easier to design. Maybe incorporate the Allied bombing into the PTO setups.
B-25's and B-26's are good for low level attacking with no formations. Having the Allies being split between fighters and bombers would help the Axis defend better. On the same token, Ki-67's are excellent for level bombing with formations against CV groups carrying torpedoes.
Carrier vs carrier right now will be lopsided leaning towards Allied with the advantage. The present FSO is the exception with the way the frames are set up.
Just my two cents.
-
I am wondering if there is some discussion to be made about what should be prioritised, historical accuracy or playability. Is this a false dilemma? Is there another way?
I personally don't think there is an epic clash between these two characteristics. History in FSO, IMO, provides us the ability to build context, to perhaps teach a little history each week, and to flavor, but not dominate, the setup architecture. Playability is the caveat, and ultimately, if historical flavor prevents player fun, then the history is too dominant, and needs to be reined in. After all, the main goal of every FSO is to be fun.
The issue with respect to PTO setups is this: can you create a playable setup that has a historical context? Does the nature of the Japanese aircraft create the potential for playable setups? Certainly later in the war, the IJA/IJN planes offer a better match-up. Currently, the only means I see with which to balance the early IJ planeset is through numbers. Sometimes numbers may not be enough to make a setup playable, at least at the micro level. You can use scoring and objectives to create balance and playability at the macro level, but it doesn't mean the individual pilots will have fun, even if their side "wins". Its an issue that I've struggled with for a while now.
-
I know the best times in FSO are what keeps me coming back.
I accept that I may get an assignment that is virtually impossible, which is actually historically accurate. :aok
I know it sucks when you and your squad go down in flames 2 minutes after making contact after flying around for 45-60 minutes. Compound that with the fact that they are in superior rides that may not be historically accurate and it is even more frustrating. However, when the stars align and your 190A-5 is diving from 22k in from the high 9o'clock onto 8 sets of B24's with a heavy escort of 38s and Juggs you know why FSO makes my joystick wiggle.
Sometimes getting a crap assignment is cool too just for the challenge.
I loves me some FSO. :salute
-
However, when the stars align and your 190A-5 is diving from 22k in from the high 9o'clock onto 8 sets of B24's with a heavy escort of 38s and Juggs ...
More like, 190A8 wobbling around well above it's FTH trying to chase 38K P-38s and P-47s, that used air starts to climb super high, while 109K-4s stall out at 30K, while the bombers fly by faster than you at 32K, bomb their target with impunity, and make it home. Meanwhile, the allied fighters roam around death-match style vulching and picking and gang banging anything they can find, even though their mission was close escort of the invulnerable bombers, they ignore all orders and go chasing any axis plane to the ends of the map even though it's clear it wants to disengage, it's clear it's out of the fight, they follow it until the frame ends, then collide with it trying to vulch it as it touches down.
That's a more representative view of the FSOs for the past 6-10 months.
-
More like, 190A8 wobbling around well above it's FTH trying to chase 38K P-38s and P-47s, that used air starts to climb super high, while 109K-4s stall out at 30K, while the bombers fly by faster than you at 32K, bomb their target with impunity, and make it home. Meanwhile, the allied fighters roam around death-match style vulching and picking and gang banging anything they can find, even though their mission was close escort of the invulnerable bombers, they ignore all orders and go chasing any axis plane to the ends of the map even though it's clear it wants to disengage, it's clear it's out of the fight, they follow it until the frame ends, then collide with it trying to vulch it as it touches down.
That's a more representative view of the FSOs for the past 6-10 months.
Learn to communicate better within your squad, and more importantly, to other squadrons on command text ch 150.
Simply report any changes in all enemy activity.
-
Learn to communicate better within your squad, and more importantly, to other squadrons on command text ch 150.
Simply report any changes in all enemy activity.
No. I want to complain some more. ;)
-
USMC has proven their capabilities in the FSO more times than I can count. I don't need to justify my qualifications while participating in the FSO, to Kermit or Nef.
Blaming me is like the AvA folks blaming anybody that says something unfavorable: Doesn't mean you're solving the problem.
-
More like, 190A8 wobbling around well above it's FTH trying to chase 38K P-38s and P-47s, that used air starts to climb super high, while 109K-4s stall out at 30K, while the bombers fly by faster than you at 32K, bomb their target with impunity, and make it home. Meanwhile, the allied fighters roam around death-match style vulching and picking and gang banging anything they can find, even though their mission was close escort of the invulnerable bombers, they ignore all orders and go chasing any axis plane to the ends of the map even though it's clear it wants to disengage, it's clear it's out of the fight, they follow it until the frame ends, then collide with it trying to vulch it as it touches down.
That's a more representative view of the FSOs for the past 6-10 months.
Hard to have a reasonable discussion when somebody responds to my $.02 only to tell me my experience is different than it actually was and that his is a more representative view of the FSOs for the past 6-10 months.
Krusty, I can't tell everyone what their experiences were, and obviously you can't either. I don't doubt you are upset with the current FSO and that is why you stated the following...
Once upon a time, long ago, the FSO held an interesting world (virtual, that is) for me. In this world you might get a kill, you might get killed, and you might just as well survive a frame with no kills, never firing a shot, but being mixed up in the thick of it all the while.
The past many many months it has been nothing but 1-way trips. You can't finish the job, you can't make it back safely, there's almost never any real gameplay balance (later war setups are just as bad as early ones!). The entire thing stinks like a fish cannery.
I've stopped showing up at FSOs except on very special occassions (if I really want to fly "plane X") because it's going down the tubes, and has been steadily.
It's nothing but a deathmatch fragfest, and I stopped playing first person shooters online because that gets boring after you pass the age of 12. Why would I want to fly AH setups that wind up that way?
Answer is: I wouldn't.
So I don't.
That's my 1-man movement.
I guess you are content not to play the FSO "deathmatch fragfest". I guess you would like things to change so you can come back and enjoy it. However, I doubt coming in here and dismissing others experiences as rare, or denying that other people are having a good time finding fights that just don't exist in the Ma's will help you out.
Enjoy your 1-man movement, but its always more fun w/ a chick.
-
I'm not dismissing others' experiences. I simply think they were under-stated and "too kind" to paint a full picture.
How about the last FSO with heavy jabo P4-7s flying in a gaggle of 30-50 planes at well over 35K, an altitude even stripped down 109s/190s couldn't dream of getting to?
How about the current FSO, with D3As and B5Ns vs F6Fs?
How about the one a few months back where A20Gs were tasked to hit a target and instead were dogfighting en masse, entire squads of 8+ A-20Gs dogfighting 1-2 190As on the deck over the 190A's own town ack (literally 100 feet above the buildings) and winning? Or how about me and my squad flying 200 miles off course just to try and find some field NOT being vulched by lone-wulf allies in P-51Ds or P-47Ds or P-38J/Ls, and then just as we attempt to land in come 2 more P-51s at 500mph from 15k to the deck to vulch us on final? All of these were the same FSO setup.
These, and indeed every, FSOs paint the picture much more clearly than the comment I replied to, and are a regular (constant) occurance. That's not merely perspective. That's just how bad the FSO is these days.
As for me, I said "to hell with this" and don't expect it to change any. Can you dismiss my claims? I've said nothing that is untrue, and probably most if it I have on archived film footage somewhere.
-
I'm not dismissing others' experiences. I simply think they were under-stated and "too kind" to paint a full picture.
How about the last FSO with heavy jabo P4-7s flying in a gaggle of 30-50 planes at well over 35K, an altitude even stripped down 109s/190s couldn't dream of getting to?
How about the current FSO, with D3As and B5Ns vs F6Fs?
How about the one a few months back where A20Gs were tasked to hit a target and instead were dogfighting en masse, entire squads of 8+ A-20Gs dogfighting 1-2 190As on the deck over the 190A's own town ack (literally 100 feet above the buildings) and winning? Or how about me and my squad flying 200 miles off course just to try and find some field NOT being vulched by lone-wulf allies in P-51Ds or P-47Ds or P-38J/Ls, and then just as we attempt to land in come 2 more P-51s at 500mph from 15k to the deck to vulch us on final? All of these were the same FSO setup.
These, and indeed every, FSOs paint the picture much more clearly than the comment I replied to, and are a regular (constant) occurance. That's not merely perspective. That's just how bad the FSO is these days.
As for me, I said "to hell with this" and don't expect it to change any. Can you dismiss my claims? I've said nothing that is untrue, and probably most if it I have on archived film footage somewhere.
How does this relate to Dantoo's agenda?
-
I'd like to add a comment to those that may or may not share my opinion on the matter.
This thread is about gameplay balance in the FSOs, vs lacking planesets, and finding something that "works" between the two extremes.
My comment above is 100% directly related to this topic, as I feel the FSOs setups are lopsided, uncivilized gang bangs most of the time. This is the gameplay part of the issue. I don't think there is much anymore.
There was a time when spit5s ran across 190A5s, had a fight, and parted company. Now the 190s break off, chase the spits outside icon range for 50 mi and vulch them as they try to land. Quite a bit of difference, as far as gameplay balance is concerned.
To point this topic back to the "answer" to this problem, I don't know if any amount of rules ro changes can revert this behavior. You can't create a rule if you can't enforce it, and most rule suggestions just can't be enforced. It's simply the result of too many MA dweebs influencing the FSO over the years. The attitudes have totally about-faced and the end result is it's no longer fun on Friday nights for me.
I have suggested a couple of ideas before, on similar topics, but they wouldn't work (rotating squads in and out to reduce the player count, or removing all bomber formations and putting a single pilot in a single plane, adjusting side counts so ratios are the same) but the end result is that no idea that has been suggested will change anything so far.
If my previous post sounds bleak, it is merely reflecting my hope for a better FSO at the moment.
-
I'm not dismissing others' experiences. I simply think they were under-stated and "too kind" to paint a full picture.
How about the last FSO with heavy jabo P4-7s flying in a gaggle of 30-50 planes at well over 35K, an altitude even stripped down 109s/190s couldn't dream of getting to?
How about the current FSO, with D3As and B5Ns vs F6Fs?
How about the one a few months back where A20Gs were tasked to hit a target and instead were dogfighting en masse, entire squads of 8+ A-20Gs dogfighting 1-2 190As on the deck over the 190A's own town ack (literally 100 feet above the buildings) and winning? Or how about me and my squad flying 200 miles off course just to try and find some field NOT being vulched by lone-wulf allies in P-51Ds or P-47Ds or P-38J/Ls, and then just as we attempt to land in come 2 more P-51s at 500mph from 15k to the deck to vulch us on final? All of these were the same FSO setup.
These, and indeed every, FSOs paint the picture much more clearly than the comment I replied to, and are a regular (constant) occurance. That's not merely perspective. That's just how bad the FSO is these days.
As for me, I said "to hell with this" and don't expect it to change any. Can you dismiss my claims? I've said nothing that is untrue, and probably most if it I have on archived film footage somewhere.
I had far different experiences in the frames you've given examples of. I found the 190A-5 to be great to fly, but I do remember a whine thread about it in which I said our squad would be more than willing to take it up if others didnt want it. I don't dismiss your claims or doubt they are true. I do have a problem with your comment that your experiences "paint the picture much more clearly than the comment you replied to,and are a regular (constant) occurence. not merely perspective"
I think the clearer picture of what is happening comes from people posting their experiences.
Telling others your experience is a clearer example as you did in the above post, or flat out dismissing it as you did w/ my first comment in this thread is how you get narrower view of something.
How does this relate to Dantoo's agenda?
I guess I didnt like my original post getting dismissed. I thought it related how I feel the CMs are trying to create both historical accuracy and playability. Also I wanted to point out that I didnt expect every frame to go smoothly, but loved it when it did, and that was part of the fun for me.
-
Its his basic pattern.Every FSO Krusty is in where he gets shot down or no kills sux.Just read some in here and you will see the light. Now back to the topic on hand. The plane sets limit what can be represented. This weeks was a "Marianas turkey shoot" just like the historical model. Will the Japs do as well when the Allied force attacks their CV's next week? I would think they will do better than they did this last one. Its easier to defend in my book than to attack. Send out scouts and intercept.
Hell I like the FSO fine.Sometimes I get the bad end of the stick but so what. Everyone does.
-
There was a time when there was no vulching in fso and I sort of agree with krusty
-
(http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm228/texashogleg/untitled.jpg)
-
Vulching happens so rarely as to be a non issue. Sure someone catches a group on the rearm pads now and then but thats what a cap is for.Someone running away?IF they aint bingo ammo they should turn around and fight,but people are going to do whats allowed within the confines of the game. Their isnt much thats going to happen to change that.Allies straffed landing jets every chance they got so theres even historical precedent.
-
All three frames of Husky, the last FSO, had wind layers setup around 26K that blew with hurricane force winds downward to create an altitude ceiling. COs and XOs of squads were made aware of this.
Also frame 3 had 21 P47D11s, frame 2 had 36 P47D11s, and frame 1 had 29 P47D11s used.
-
Dea I'm not going to get in a purse fight with you
-
All three frames of Husky, the last FSO, had wind layers setup around 26K that blew with hurricane force winds downward to create an altitude ceiling. COs and XOs of squads were made aware of this.
Also frame 3 had 21 P47D11s, frame 2 had 36 P47D11s, and frame 1 had 29 P47D11s used.
It wasn't husky. I don't remember the names of individual FSOs unless it's something specific "Coral Sea" or whatever. The 35K jabo jugs was on the England/France map, I believe.
-
Dea I'm not going to get in a purse fight with you
It seems all he can do on these forums. He has nothing to add so he tries to pick a fight repeatedly with quips and comments, but only ends up hurting the forums or the topic at hand.
-
Pardon my confusion since you said:
How about the last FSO with heavy jabo P4-7s flying in a gaggle of 30-50 planes at well over 35K, an altitude even stripped down 109s/190s couldn't dream of getting to?
And the last FSO was Husky.
-
Didn't we do this before? :aok
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,264475.0.html
-
Didn't we do this before? :aok
We do it every Month around here :rolleyes:
-
There was a time when there was no vulching in fso and I sort of agree with krusty
Not to sound augmentative, but.....
When?
Are you saying there was a time when Vulchng was not allowed? against the "rules"?
I don't remember that ever being the case.
There WAS a time when vulching almost never happened because there was only about 150 people in FSO and there was rarely a situation where you came upon an enemy base with AC re-arming.
But I DO remember a time or two playing TOD, and finding a few AC rearming at an enemy base. We DID try to vulch them.
-
Didn't we do this before? :aok
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,264475.0.html
Didn't we do what? DMBear, please pardon me if I'm a bit stiff with you and Nef, but frankly I'm grown a little sick of the 'tude some folks throw my way.
Didn't we do what? I posted on a serious issue (bomber speed, climb, lethality, all being far above and beyond anything they historically could/should/would be), and 7 pages of flaming and trolling later evidence has been supplied to back up my initial post. Did you read it, or like Nef did you simply scroll through my initial post, say "it's a rant" to yourself, and close your mind and not bother reading the thread?
Not related to this thread, directly. I will say that the post is still valid, and was a last straw from multiple dozens of occasions where it was a major issue. The problem in that thread is still unresolved. Ignore DrDea's trolls, and you will find a debate in the heart of it.
You want to link the two, fine by me. This was a reply to a thread about gameplay issues, planesets, and imbalances. That is specifically about super-powered bombers.
Why you want to bring it up, I don't know, but it's the kind of 'tude I was talking about.
-
Dantoo, congrats on starting a reasonable discussion. I bet many thought it wouldn't go well when we saw the title. I was one, but I still fit my first post into the topic at hand. As soon as my post was attacked I fought back. I don't apologize.
Didn't we do what? DMBear, please pardon me if I'm a bit stiff with you and Nef, but frankly I'm grown a little sick of the 'tude some folks throw my way.
Didn't we do what? I posted on a serious issue (bomber speed, climb, lethality, all being far above and beyond anything they historically could/should/would be), and 7 pages of flaming and trolling later evidence has been supplied to back up my initial post. Did you read it, or like Nef did you simply scroll through my initial post, say "it's a rant" to yourself, and close your mind and not bother reading the thread?
Not related to this thread, directly. I will say that the post is still valid, and was a last straw from multiple dozens of occasions where it was a major issue. The problem in that thread is still unresolved. Ignore DrDea's trolls, and you will find a debate in the heart of it.
You want to link the two, fine by me. This was a reply to a thread about gameplay issues, planesets, and imbalances. That is specifically about super-powered bombers.
Why you want to bring it up, I don't know, but it's the kind of 'tude I was talking about.
'TUDE? look in the mirror.
Damn Krusty. :rolleyes: I post on an experience of a fight in 190A5's during a discussion of FSO and you dismiss it and instead go into a downward spiral about how it'd be a "clearer picture of fso" if we all used one of your examples. Then I find an old post of you squeaking about the very frame which I brought up as an example of fun in 190A5 that didn't go as well for you. I guess you had to vent...then quit FSO's soon after like a....and finally had to come back to the forum and tell me that my fun never happened.
You get the red bag award...
(http://i411.photobucket.com/albums/pp193/dmbear/images-5.jpg)
read the post again..you'll see that others had fun in the very craft you decided was unfairly assigned. http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,264475.0.html
Did you get the name Krusty because nobody has provided tissues for you to wipe your watery eyes?
-
Sled, my bad, went back to a former thread about a year ago and I misunderstood it
-
Might as well lock this one down as it off the tracks...
-
Yep we tried :)
A couple of interesting viewpoints in there.
I wanted to get a general view established on how far we were willing to trade history for playability, or pehaps trade off both for overall balance. (EG. A second life for a Ju87 or just one life and ensure that there are real opportunities for the player to complete his mission alive).
Next I think I'll concentrate on gathering viewpoints on whether it's possible to keep a discussion on the AH Boards civil and focussed. :)
-
I suggested this once before, but:
Establish a universal restriction on numbers of aircraft that can launch from a given base. If an airfield or CV can only launch so many fighters and bombers the CiC would have to more carefully tailor his plans for strikes and defensive operations.
Say, if a small airfield can only launch 15 fighters and ten bombers, but he also has to DEFEND that base, what does he do? Does he have that airfield devote all its fighters to CAP and have a different base provide escort? Does he split that base's fighter resources? Call in defenders from other fields nearby? Since both sides would be faced with the same restrictions that should help balance things, and limit the opportunity for CiC's to utilize hordeing as a "tactic."