Aces High Bulletin Board
Special Events Forums => Friday Squad Operations => Topic started by: daddog on September 19, 2010, 10:47:23 AM
-
Special thanks goes out to Baumer who on more than one occasion kept this FSO on track and took the time to score it according to my rules and write up. Also 68Falcon who was willing to do what was needed because I just did not have the time this past month.
My apologies for the lopsided results gents. It was a scramble to get this out as fellow who was to run this past FSO had to depart unexpectedly. I was unwilling to toss the responsibility in the lap of another Admin CM so I ran with it myself. After one design had to be scratched because of terrain problems (no fault of the terrain team) I was >< this close to skipping the Sept. FSO. FUBAR comes to mind.
I also want to apologize to the Unforgiven who had Setup, (the guy who sets up the arena) Bouncer, (assists the Setup CM and checks uniforms) and CiC duty all in one frame. In my scramble to throw this together I totally missed that.
Frame 1 Score
Allies
Single engine fighter kills- 84 (84*5)= 420 Points
Hangers- 3 (3*25)= 75 Points
Strat Buildgings- 44 (44*2)= 88 Points
Allied Total = 583 Points
Axis
Single engine fighter kills- 84 (84*5)= 420 Points
Double engine fighter kills- 8 (8*8)= 64 Points
Mosquito's/A-20- 19 (19*10)= 190 Points
B-17's/B-24's- 30 (30*20)= 600 Points
Axis total 1274 Points
Axis penalty -100 Points for aircraft not climbing over targets.
Axis Total = 1174
Frame 2 Score
Allied
Single Engine Fighter- 95 x 5 =475
Multi Engine Fighter- 4 x 8 = 32
Hangers- 5 x 25 = 125
Strat Objects- 90 x 2 = 180
Allied Sub Total = 812
Allied penalty penalty points -100 for players re-upping
Allied Total = 712
Axis
Single Engine Fighter- 83 x 5 =415
P-38- 18 x 8 = 144
Mossie- 13 x 10 = 130
B-17/B-24- 23 x 20 = 460
Axis sub Total = 1149
Axis penalty points -100 for entering the no fly zone.
Axis Total = 1049
Frame 3 Score
Allied
Single Engine Fighter- 77 x 5 = 385
Strat Object- 187 x 2 = 374
Allied Total = 759
Axis
Single Engine Fighter- 80 x 5 = 400
Double Engine Fighter- 11 x 8 = 88
A-20- 13 x 10 = 130
B-17/24- 46 x 20 = 920
Axis Total = 1538
Final Score
Allies = 2054
Axis = 3761
-
Was fun anyway thanks for the effort DD :salute
On a side note DD maybe someone at HTC could look at the last frame.
The disco's rear'd it's ugly head again.
Dh
-
Fun event. First time doing something with one side dose all air-spawn (that i can remeber), hopefully, we can improve this event so that it runs better.
-
In frame two, the Allies flew seven B-17s and six B-24s. The minimums called for by the objectives were eight of each.
Is there no penalty for failing to meet the minimums?
-
In frame two, the Allies flew seven B-17s and six B-24s. The minimums called for by the objectives were eight of each.
Is there no penalty for failing to meet the minimums?
I see your point in principal... but it won't change the outcome. Seems a waste to be concerned about it.
-
Is there no penalty for failing to meet the minimums?
Yes, I forgot about that. I recall a couple PM's about it.
Simply put I would have taken another 100 points for each minimum not being met, but it seems rather moot at this point.
-
The Unforgiven was happy to assist in this FSO. You gave us a job and we did it for you. We are honored that you respect us that much. The truth is we get to delegate CIC duties to other members of the squad. It is an eye opening experience. Kinda like your first High-G turn. You learn there is an entire new world out there. But beware-- The World of the Admins. Those are some strange people.
-
"Axis penalty -100 Points for aircraft not climbing over targets."
objectives do not say axis must climb over targets ...
"- Axis must use that time to get over the target they are
defending. Axis pilots must NOT fly toward Allied spawn
points till the Allied side spawns in the air, (10 minutes
after the Axis rolls)."
axis were ordered not to move to spawns till t + 10
axis were instructed to move to their patrol areas and as far as i know they all did so ...
i am not looking for 100 points here, just pointing out the reasons for the penalty are not clearly stated in the objectives,
and should be more clear in the future.
i chose to defend airspace not targets but the axis climbed to those patrol areas, not the allied spawns.
i think if you are going to dictate how we deploy then that should be very very clear in future objectives.
the axis followed the rules and climbed to the area they were to defend in frame 1,
i just had different specifics of tasking than you invisioned.
that is not prohibited in the objectives and no rules were violated in frame 1.
respectfully,
t
-
In frame two, the Allies flew seven B-17s and six B-24s. The minimums called for by the objectives were eight of each.
Is there no penalty for failing to meet the minimums?
That was my mistake. I had asked for volunteers to make up the #s of heavies in frame 2 the same as was done in Frame 1. I put it out on command channel 150 and assumed that it was done. After reading the logs I realized that we would be penalized for the 3 buffs we were short. My apologies to the Allies for not confirming the #s
:salute Jed
-
"Axis penalty -100 Points for aircraft not climbing over targets."
objectives do not say axis must climb over targets ...
"- Axis must use that time to get over the target they are
defending. Axis pilots must NOT fly toward Allied spawn
points till the Allied side spawns in the air, (10 minutes
after the Axis rolls)."
axis were ordered not to move to spawns till t + 10
axis were instructed to move to their patrol areas and as far as i know they all did so ...
i am not looking for 100 points here, just pointing out the reasons for the penalty are not clearly stated in the objectives,
and should be more clear in the future.
i chose to defend airspace not targets but the axis climbed to those patrol areas, not the allied spawns.
i think if you are going to dictate how we deploy then that should be very very clear in future objectives.
the axis followed the rules and climbed to the area they were to defend in frame 1,
i just had different specifics of tasking than you invisioned.
that is not prohibited in the objectives and no rules were violated in frame 1.
respectfully,
t
Saw that too. I was not aware you guys (axis) had to do that.
-
i like how it turned out for the allies despite the changes in frame 2 and 3. doesnt make sense though :headscratch:
-
Axis must use that time to get over the target they are defending. Axis pilots must NOT fly toward Allied spawnpoints till the Allied side spawns in the air. (10 minutes after the Axis rolls)
To be specific if I must it was not for the lack of climbing, but the failure of the Axis to head to their targets and defend them. This rule was clearly violated and confirmed by several on the Allied side who complained to me about it.
-
Yes, I forgot about that. I recall a couple PM's about it.
Simply put I would have taken another 100 points for each minimum not being met, but it seems rather moot at this point.
No problem, Daddog. RL happens.
But if I might make a suggestion: if the frame set-up objectives are truly important to the designer, penalties should be large enough to be meaningful. Else why bother? A mere 100 points in the middle of a 4000-point series of frames is not going to be any kind of real deterrant.
-
I hear you Bino. I honestly expected the score to be a bit closer, so I figured a 100 points would matter. Sure was wrong about that. :headscratch:
Next time I will shoot for 250. :)
-
I'm surprised that the axis won that one, looked like the allies had it in the bag.
Was a good FSO, thank you for taking the time to set it up. :salute
-
I'm surprised that the axis won that one, looked like the allies had it in the bag.
Was a good FSO, thank you for taking the time to set it up. :salute
Did it look like "allies had it in the bag" after frame 1 when they were outscored by twice as much or after frame 2 when it happened again?
I have trouble with math I guess.
-
To be specific if I must it was not for the lack of climbing, but the failure of the Axis to head to their targets and defend them. This rule was clearly violated and confirmed by several on the Allied side who complained to me about it.
yes sir i think if you are going to levy penalties then you need to be very specific, especially if you believe the penalty will make a big difference.
the axis climbed to their areas they were assigned to defend and patrol per my orders, no where in the objectives did it limit me as to the use of my assets or did it specify a force/allied target ratio, a distance limit from specific assigned target, or anything of the kind. so i honestly took "target" to be "objective" or "area of assignemnt" and ordered the axis accordingly.
it is important to communicate well, your 6 line limit was very clear. any order as specific as yoou are interpreting the one you found fault with in frame 1 needs to be written specifically.
i am curious as to why nobody asked for orders or why the allies sit in judgement on this issue as since they were not to be in the air should have had no idea of what the axis were up to before t+10.
t
-
To be specific if I must it was not for the lack of climbing, but the failure of the Axis to head to their targets and defend them. This rule was clearly violated and confirmed by several on the Allied side who complained to me about it.
Whether a defense of a target is directly over it, or two sectors away should be irrelevant. If the opposing forces meet within the time restriction, then all of the preset conditions have been met.
This is another example of penalties being assessed by some obscure intent of a rule and not the rule itself.
-
As the mission planner for the VF-15 I am truly concerned about this. I now wonder if I created conditions for failure when I assigned units along assumed threat vectors during the FSO, instead of keeping them in tight bundles right over the target. I always had our scouts make SNAP to their scout positions, and even some high cap were a sector away from the assigned target, along those threat vectors. After all, I could not see positioning bomber-killers OVER the target, that would mean engaging the bombers AFTER they had dropped. A bit like "closing the barn door after the horse is gone" to my mind. Besides, we wanted the time to wage a running battle.
We didn't have time in the first frame to do a graphic, but Frame 1 and Frame 2 looked almost identical, and this is the unit disposition of the VF15 during Frame 2.
(http://i22.servimg.com/u/f22/14/72/79/62/frame210.jpg) (http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=53&u=14727962)
This was our disposition during Frame three. We did have scouts and high-cap moving perpendicular to the assumed threat vectors in sectors 9/19 and 10/19 down to 9/18 and 10/18.
(http://i22.servimg.com/u/f22/14/72/79/62/frame310.jpg) (http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=57&u=14727962)
I have to agree with WaxMan, as the penalties for violating the rule were never clearly stated, we're being judged on the rules intent, which I thought I was following. There is too much grey area there. So I ask, based up on our unit positions, did we violate this ambiguous rule?
Also, I want to clearly state my intent for this post: I am not looking to change points for this frame. I want to know if I was following the rules, or, if by showing initiative, violated them. I also want to make sure that, going forward, if we’re to be docked points that such rules have clear conditions, and point values, assigned – much like the 5/6 line rule did.
-
Of all the FSO i have been in (5 years) never have i seen one that had so many problems regarding rules, numbers and a few bad apples.
-
Of all the FSO i have been in (5 years) never have i seen one that had so many problems regarding rules, numbers and a few bad apples.
Search back and you will find yourself in error.
I only bring this up because I logged in to congratulate the CMs for another month with few complaints and given this one was done on the fly, that is a feather in cap. I still think that given how many of the late war Euro setups have gone, this was a supprise. Not faced with the traditional overwhelming odds, the Axis rose to the challenge. Been on the wrong end of The Mighty 8Th a few times. This is basically a good setup.
Given that IRL the Luft knew what was coming and did not have the resources to stop it, I say: Let the Allies have a little less radar to avoid and let the Axis work on interdiction more by design. See how that plays out. Keep the No Fly Zone. Just let the Axis manage their air space as they see fit.
PS: I also recall someone stating that it was a handcap being Axis in general. I remember a time when Axis= glorious death. He must have not been around 6 years ago. HTC has done a few favors with plane set, but I hold the CM staff responsible for most of the level playing field. Your concerns did not go unanswered.
-
Thanks RSL. :)
-
Did it look like "allies had it in the bag" after frame 1 when they were outscored by twice as much or after frame 2 when it happened again?
I have trouble with math I guess.
This statement it from a pilots view, I did not look at the scores. Our group got killed withing 5 minutes of enagement from high tempests and 51s that out preformed out plane at all altitudes.
I just though that the case would be similar with a few other of the Axis squads.
-
This statement it from a pilots view, I did not look at the scores. Our group got killed withing 5 minutes of enagement from high tempests and 51s that out preformed out plane at all altitudes.
I just though that the case would be similar with a few other of the Axis squads.
why we need the a/s model 109s :)
-
i really have no idea why the allies took it on the chin so hard this series ...
this is another reason why a side secure bbs would be helpful we could all
then review each others problems planning and execution per orders at the end of the series.
how does everyone feel about posting the orders and objectives and sorting this out.
beat downs like this if they persist are not very good for events.
-
I think it would be too hard to keep information secure with so many fso pilots.. Perhaps a Co forum would work. Not a bad ideah to throw around the table thorism.. :joystick:
-
I think it would be too hard to keep information secure with so many fso pilots.. Perhaps a Co forum would work. Not a bad ideah to throw around the table thorism.. :joystick:
Do you mean an Allied side CO forum and an Axis side CO forum for each individual FSO event? That would be nice and probably easy for the CM tean to set-up.
How many will actually take the 5 minutes per day to log on and read what's posted? And, how many of the silent majority will actually post to add more to the varied opinions? :headscratch:
I add my +1 to the notion of a CO forum for each side per FSO.
-
howdy fellas i am with THorsim on this one. i am in Jg-27 AFRIKA and dang proud of it..its kinda of pathetic for grown men to squeak about a game that every single one of us pays for..its not just one person doing this that or the other, but a group of folks all looking to have fun..But the side CO forums would be nice to get facts straight and what not..Me thinks i would take some of the complaining away mostly from what i see its all allied doing complaining Hmmm makes you wonder huh.. but get them forums up and explain in detail what objectives are and what rules of engagement are and what not..
<S> all
Heinrich
-
I could be mistaken but adding forums and such requires the magical powers of Skuzzy, not the CM Team.
-
Cm's had side forums in the last scenario.. Maybe Brooke could chime in..
-
I wouldn't mind the axis and allied forums, although, I dont know how much good it would do as about 1/2 the people dont even take the time to read the orders until about 5 minutes before the scenario if at all. The other downfall I see is that the leadership by committee thing usually doesn't work. Its nice to develop a strategy on your own or with the help of a select few squaddies and then see how it plays out. When I was CM on my last time, I sent out an email anouncing that I was the CM and that if their was any special requests, please let me know. That seemed to have just worked out just fine for that frame.
I can imagine trying to develop orders in a timely manor and having to deal with the the pages and pages of endless crying when everyone doesn't get their way. We all have seen this here, can you imagine dealing with that and still trying to get something accomplished?
-
I could be mistaken but adding forums and such requires the magical powers of Skuzzy, not the CM Team.
And it's a MAJOR pain in the head, neck, butt, and any other area... One guy has to go in there for EVERY forum ID and enter that person's name. Forget if they don't give the right forum ID, are unreachable... Forget doing this 500 times EVERY third week...
Forget it. Having seen that in scenarios (with numbers up to only 150 sometimes) it's way way WAY more trouble than you think. To do it on a constant-rotation is asking for a coordination nightmare.
-
Correction to my last post: CM should have been CIC.
:o
Edgar
-
SMF, the software that runs this BBS, supports private member groups (http://docs.simplemachines.org/index.php?topic=128), i.e., squadrons. The monthly upkeep *could* be merely allowing squads, not each individual pilot, into the right forums.
But that looks like it *might* require Skuzzy to update the entire BBS from version 1.1 to version 2 of SMF. A non-trivial exercise, I bet.
-
Lets not forget that the Allies and Axis assignments CHANGE every month. This would mean redoing the forum privileges for everyone, every month. The chances of someone getting privileges to the wrong forum section increase every time it has to be changed.
Personally, I see nothing wrong with the way we do it now. CM emails objectives out to each side. CiC's then draw up orders based on those objectives and email them out to their sides. If squads need to coordinate, or have questions for the CiC or CM, they do it via email.
The same people that do not check their email now, or wait until 10 minutes before the frame... are going to be the same ones that dont check a forum, or wait until 10 minutes before the frame to do it. I see no reason to take all the effort to reinvent the FSO wheel here, when only a small percentage of us would use it.
Dont get me wrong, in a perfect world... it is a great idea. But in practice, it would be a huge administration nightmare, and wouldn't add that much, if anything, to the event in my opinion.
-
One more thought....
Now if someone wanted to create a PRIVATE FSO forum for this purpose... which would NOT me associated with the main AH forums, that could easily be done... although it would still require extra management. It would need to be limited to the REGISTERED squad members that are on the FSO email list now. For example... to be granted acces to the forum, your user name would need to be the same as your AH Game ID, and the email the same as the one on the AH Events roster. So only 4 squad members per squad would be allowed on the boards.
Each month, a new forum section would be created for that months FSO for each side... with the privileges granted to the squads on those respective sides. This would allow older FSO sections to remain on the boards, and still be restricted to the squads they are supposed to be restricted to.
In other words, you wouldn't change the privileges of the SQUADS each month... only the privileges of the forum section for that month would need to be set for the squads that would see them.
I can do this on the forum I run for our squad now, so I know it is possible.
Now again... with all this said, this would need to be a DUPLICATION of the email system we use now... not a replacement for it. The email system would still need to be the primary means of communicating objectives and orders. A forum would be a secondary means. Which brings up the next point... do we really want a forum to discuss orders? Orders are just that... orders. If we open up a discussion forum on them, it gives people the opportunity to complain about them much more easily, and much more publicly. Orders from the CiC should be simply executed... not discussed amongst a group and questioned... just more of my ramblings here.
-
Question: Why not impose a tax on all participating squads to pay a legion of suits to hand deliver info to the CO and XO of each squad and require a signature after presenting a picture ID?
Answer: Much expense with no return. There are some that will not answer the door or be out of town without forwarding the responsibility to others. They volunteer to abide by rules and don't do as expected. This will always happen from time to time.
I also do realise that the "side forum campain" suggests that it will be beneficial in the planning process for the sides. Planning by committee is not the answer or intent of FSO. Around 4 days to provide orders does not give much time for debate. The responsibility is rotated fairly. Minimum of 2 individuals per week. Eveyone else can relax and just try to follow orders. Anyone that wants to contribute can by PM or in the case of officers, email. If a CO needs help, he has several options available.
COs that respond to their duty is the solution. It seems the issue rarely comes up unless some one has missed that point. The CMs have the means to deal with this. Luckily for some, they are not a trigger happy bunch. They invite participation despite our failings. You have to intentionally, repeatedly or grievously screw up to be on the outs with them. Lucky me :)
-
One more thought....
Now if someone wanted to create a PRIVATE FSO forum for this purpose... which would NOT me associated with the main AH forums, that could easily be done... although it would still require extra management. It would need to be limited to the REGISTERED squad members that are on the FSO email list now. For example... to be granted acces to the forum, your user name would need to be the same as your AH Game ID, and the email the same as the one on the AH Events roster. So only 4 squad members per squad would be allowed on the boards.
Each month, a new forum section would be created for that months FSO for each side... with the privileges granted to the squads on those respective sides. This would allow older FSO sections to remain on the boards, and still be restricted to the squads they are supposed to be restricted to.
In other words, you wouldn't change the privileges of the SQUADS each month... only the privileges of the forum section for that month would need to be set for the squads that would see them.
I can do this on the forum I run for our squad now, so I know it is possible.
Now again... with all this said, this would need to be a DUPLICATION of the email system we use now... not a replacement for it. The email system would still need to be the primary means of communicating objectives and orders. A forum would be a secondary means. Which brings up the next point... do we really want a forum to discuss orders? Orders are just that... orders. If we open up a discussion forum on them, it gives people the opportunity to complain about them much more easily, and much more publicly. Orders from the CiC should be simply executed... not discussed amongst a group and questioned... just more of my ramblings here.
And then there is the squad that gets moved after Frame 1 for balance issues. Not sure how much of a problem for the CMs. They do seem to handle it well though. But I see a bigger problem with a second forum.
-
And then there is the squad that gets moved after Frame 1 for balance issues. Not sure how much of a problem for the CMs. They do seem to handle it well though. But I see a bigger problem with a second forum.
That was essentially the point I was trying to make... but you managed to say it in less than 500 words :)
-
...
The same people that do not check their email now, or wait until 10 minutes before the frame... are going to be the same ones that dont check a forum, or wait until 10 minutes before the frame to do it. I see no reason to take all the effort to reinvent the FSO wheel here, when only a small percentage of us would use it.
...
You've definitely got a good point there. :salute
-
the idea is using a pw protected form so the command structure gets the PW in their side assignment e-mail ...
the mod just changes the form passwords each series.
basically it is the same security wise as it is now, the difference is ...
1) we have a concise area to discuss, plan, debrief, adjust, adapt and suggest improvements to make each sides planning and performance better.
2) we have a record of the thought process of the combatant sides that the event designers and players can review between series and understand each sides challenges and maybe adjust the events to be better for everyone.
security does not change, level of possible participation does not change but it offers us a way to sort out issues and strategy in a very active manner without blowing up everyone's e-mail.
i doubt anyone could argue that brainstorming would not be a very valuable resource to CICs not to mention a clear picture of the last battle to see what worked, what didn't and possibly why.
+S+
t
-
i doubt anyone could argue that brainstorming would not be a very valuable resource to CICs not to mention a clear picture of the last battle to see what worked, what didn't and possibly why.
+S+
t
Actually, it seems to me it would make planning a frame even more difficult. As it is now, the CiC plans, and issues the orders. Any discussion, or brainstorming that takes place, takes place within the squad serving as CiC. Once the orders are issued, there is no discussion. The orders are executed. Questions may be asked of the CiC prior to frame, but there is no "discussion" of the orders. Just as within a real military command structure.
Debrief can occur (and already does) on this forum.
I see your reason for asking for it Thor, but I really do believe it would make trying to plan a frame a nightmare for a CiC if the orders were posted in a manner where players could respond with "why did I get that plane again" or, "why did we pull bomber duty again" or, "I have a better idea"... and 1000 other comments of the like.
With all respect, the system works. Objectives are issued, orders written and sent, then executed. To add anything to that will only confuse everything.
-
quality of planning is inconsistent in the FSO,
some sort of hive mind input and quality secure review of previous operations
should improve that part of the event greatly.
-
Guess we are going to have to just agree to disagree here thor. No hard feelings on my part though. It is the differences in each of us that make life interesting.
I think that part of what makes FSO fun, and challenging, is the variety you get with a different squad, and a different level of experience sending out the orders each week. Sometimes you have a seasoned veteran writing the orders. Sometimes, it is the CiC's first time in the big chair. I know for my first time, I consulted previous CiC's and CM's for advice. I would suggest any CiC with questions or concerns do the same.
But ultimately, the job of getting to a target, or defending one... falls on the squad CO's. There have been many times all of us have been handed a "Leaky Bag of S**t"... and we have made something better out of it. Yes... there are going to be bad orders. But it is what we do with those orders that make the frame... for both sides.
A perfect example of why I think an orders planning committee based on a forum will not work, is the conversation you and I are having right now. We are both set on our opinions. Neither of us if going to sway the other with anything we say here. We both think we are right.
Now... think of this type of coversation about a set of orders, that we have to issue for 150 - 200 players... in 3 or 4 days. And think of this conversation with instead of just 2 people arguing their points... there are 10, or 20. And who is in charge? The CiC for the week? Or does the majority of squad CO's rule? I foresee a huge mess, bruised egos, and heated arguments... followed by "See Rule #4". All of which would hurt FSO more than it would help it.
There is an old saying that I find applies in just about all cases...
"Too Many Chiefs, Not enough Indians"
In my opinion, this is another one of those cases.
-
I have to side with AKP on this one.
-
you guys are confusing a CIC's access to information, and a team's pre and post frame communication
with
some sort of orders by committee situation.
i don't think i ever suggested anything of the sort.
i assure the OODA loop only works well if you are able to observe and orient thoroughly before you decide and act.
i speak from experience.
no offense,
++S++
t
-
you guys are confusing a CIC's access to information, and a team's pre and post frame communication
with
some sort of orders by committee situation.
i don't think i ever suggested anything of the sort.
i assure the OODA loop only works well if you are able to observe and orient thoroughly before you decide and act.
i speak from experience.
no offense,
++S++
t
If what you are referring to is a section on the boards where everyone can view all the past CiC Orders, posted together with the results of the frames they were written for, I think that is an OUTSTANDING idea. That would allow for CiC's to look over what has been done before, and add to it, recycle it, or make it work better. I keep all of the ones I have been sent, so it never occurred to me to archive them here.
Sorry, but it really did sound like you were talking about a "planning committee" type of set up.
And a section in the FSO forums like this wouldn't need to be protected at all. But the CiC's orders for the frames of an FSO shouldnt go up until that FSO is complete and all three frames are played out.
-
sort of ...
open archives and discussion of past completed FSO series ...
and ...
side secure archive and discussion of FSOs currently in progress ...
no community planning beyond discussion or requested input by the CIC ...
+S+
t
-
and ...
side secure archive and discussion of FSOs currently in progress ...
That, in my mind, is the problem with your suggestion.
-
That, in my mind, is the problem with your suggestion.
Exactly
-
well you guys have been here much longer than i,
it is disappointing hear that in it's own opinion the FSO community is incapable of having meaningful discussions about an ongoing series.
+S+
t
-
The community is capable of having discussions. What they are saying is a side secure area is impractical from an administrative standpoint. Every 4 weeks squads would have to have access removed from one forum and added to another forum. This starts to become a very large overhead from the administrative standpoint. Even you restrict it the side forums to just the command staff of each squad (which locks out the other squad members from participating) you are talking of having to keep track of an reset the access rights for around 120 people every four or so weeks.
With the current forum software used by HTC this has to be done manually. There is not the ability to setup a groups (say 40 groups .. one for each squad) and then just switch the group access. You would have to physically type in each persons handle to give them forum access. So that is just for the command staff of three contacts per squad.
If you wanted the whole squad on a side to have access the squad would have to submit a roster of all their pilots with their BBS handles so that the admin then could go in and give them the appropriate forum access. This is just impractical when you are talking 400 - 500 pilots.
So as others have said discussions about previous FSO, orders, etc. and archive of orders is a great idea. No reason to make these archives side secure since they are past events and one day your are on the axis side the other on the allied side. Plus, really you are just using them as learning devices to see what works tactically and strategically and to discuss among yourselves.
Side protect forums for a currently running event are simply impractical from an administrative point of view with current forum software.
-
as stated before, the solution would be a PW forum ...
not being an admin or mod on this BBS i do not know how difficult it might be here.
but it was simple enough on the other BBS where i am a mod.
the PW goes out with the other secure info so the only admin issues are changing the two side passwords before each series.
the discussions could be publicly archived also, but that is not a requirement.
+S+
t
-
Thor the current HTC forums does not use a password functionality for accessing private forums. The way you give access to private forums is to enter in the user name (BBS name) of the user you want to give access to the forum. I am the head of the Terrain Team and for the terrain private forum that is how I have to do it ith this forum software. I have to manually type in a user name to give them access to the forum.
So unless HTC changes to a different forum software it simply can't be done the way you suggest. In my additional role as a FSO admin I really don't want have to type in 100 or more users names for my event and then verify with each squad that those people are the ones that are supposed to have access. Most squads are very good at keeping their contact information up to date but there is always some lag between people leaving a squad and being replaced or something else.
Now that said for events that a much longer planning period or ramp up period, basically scenarios, they do exactly as you suggest. They setup two private forums and they type in the Axis and Allies user names for each forum. The difference here is simply the amount of time it is done before an event (the time when registration is open is several weeks before an event not one) and the fact that scenarios happen about once a quarter. Not once a month.
-
fair enough,
how would people feel about a discussion, planning solution someplace other than the AH boards?
-
Not rejecting the idea, but if it were moderated by a participant that is not a CM or their appointee, I would have to say no thank you. Besides, anyone that did so without being vetted by the CM staff would be opening themselves up to accusations anyway.
-
Frankly, Thorsim, I think you're trying to make way more out of it than you need to.
This isn't a scenario. It's an ever-changing FSO.
Making side-specific forums is only going to make things more difficult, make already-change-resistant people want to NOT change sides, and frankly it's a bit pretentious of the FSO event as a whole to pretend it really needs private forums.
I'm not saying it's perfect. There are bumps in the road now and then. Overall, however, it has survived for how many years now without private side-specific forums?
IMO, just like asking for no icons, "private forums" is just another way of making it like the AvA arena (as in during the "war" they have). We don't want that.
-
fair enough,
how would people feel about a discussion, planning solution someplace other than the AH boards?
I say let the free market dictate...
Build it, Advertise it here and see if it takes off.
Ill join up and have a look.
<S>
Edgar
-
You need to start your own thread about this.
Or punt one of the old ones that have had the same request.