Aces High Bulletin Board
Special Events Forums => Friday Squad Operations => Topic started by: kilo2 on August 18, 2012, 09:31:01 PM
-
Since no one has started a thread let me. Opinions with respect please.
I personally believe they cut into the fun of events. They are to often heavy handed and do not represent the air war in Europe. Cap1 this last event tried to make them viable but further proved the point that there is no good way to implement them. I understand why allies believe they should have them and agree to an extent. There is no reason why a map should be cut in half for the axis so the allies can land.
-
Since no one has started a thread let me. Opinions with respect please.
I personally believe they cut into the fun of events. They are to often heavy handed and do not represent the air war in Europe. Cap1 this last event tried to make them viable but further proved the point that there is no good way to implement them. I understand why allies believe they should have them and agree to an extent. There is no reason why a map should be cut in half for the axis so the allies can land.
Nothing should be added. Well said. It is not fun for Axis to chase little girls to a no fly zone then turn around. I am sure running from rabid 109s and 190s as fast as you can to a no fly zone as an Allied pilot is not very fun either.
Enemy Coast Ahead was DESTROYED by no fly zones, therefore it is properly named "Don't Go Feet Wet."
Get rid of them, or put them WAY WAY WAY in the back.
-
Gotta disagree.. Think about it... on a map like the one we just had the Axis would end up chasing the bombers until the point of no return for the Axis. They would then need to make the decision to continue the chase hoping to catch someone landing and not make it back to a friendly base in time or turning around at the last second to fly several sectors back to a friendly field to land.
I've always thought of the no fly zones as a "time warp" setup to help moves things along. As was brought up in another post the frame is 2 hours long. That's it.
-
Gotta disagree.. Think about it... on a map like the one we just had the Axis would end up chasing the bombers until the point of no return for the Axis. They would then need to make the decision to continue the chase hoping to catch someone landing and not make it back to a friendly base in time or turning around at the last second to fly several sectors back to a friendly field to land.
I've always thought of the no fly zones as a "time warp" setup to help moves things along. As was brought up in another post the frame is 2 hours long. That's it.
And the bombers were already back across the original no fly line before T+60 (where the Axis get 1 more sector to fly after T+60). So half of the planes we get to shoot down are already out of the fight.
-
Accuracy and Playability are the main factors in an event's design. If you are a CM and do not know this, I pity the CM team. The no fly zone in Frame 3 more so than the rest of the frames severely killed the playability factor. Accurate? Maybe so. Fun and playable for those stationed a sector away from the no fly zone? Hell no.
Designers must find a happy medium between playability (fun) and historical accuracy. I preach this all the time. Shifty's last month was good. Frame 1 was a little odd but 2 and 3 were very good.
-
So perd ya want to take your wolf pack to the allied fields and vulch aircraft landing late in the frame? We have to have some protection against you guys, no fly zones work well for both sides.
-
So perd ya want to take your wolf pack to the allied fields and vulch aircraft landing late in the frame? We have to have some protection against you guys, no fly zones work well for both sides.
Really? I don't know about Perdue...but YES...I know I want to follow the enemy out and nail his arse when he's landing. Just like this from last night:
aztec
23:24:23 Departed from Field #52 in a Fw 190A-8
00:12:01 Takes on fuel/ammo/ord at field #47.
00:33:21 Helps Stampf shoot down Badmood.
00:39:54 Helps Ernst21 shoot down McTunes.
00:43:38 Was shot down by 12High (exploded).
8 of us were gear down and landing when the vultching 38's came in. Az couldn't tower in time.
If you want to pick a fight or argue an opinion, at least keep it real. Better yet...just keep it real.
-
Probably an uninteresting and useless sidenote; I didn't cry.
-
You know Stampf is right. If the ALLIES can vulch then the AXIS should be able to as well. Its only fair.
The No fly zones are needed in the beginning in order to allow the ALLIED bombers and escorts to get into position after airspawning. Historically this probably replicates "The Channel" fairly well in that the ALLIED bombers would be at altitude, in formation with escorts and up to full speed before crossing it. Also we don't need the AXIS vulching the spawn points or rushing them in the first 5 minutes etc.
But after say 15 minutes the No Fly Zone could be eliminated and then its just a normal map with targets and fields you can land at. Map would have to be divided up fairly evenly so that there were many fields to land at thus avoiding a situation where the AXIS could just focus their efforts into a small area. Just divide the map 50/50 ALLIED / AXIS fields.
As for AXIS vulching as the ALLIED bombers land. I don't think it would happen that often. A smart Strike Package Leader would just keep his escorts with him and then set up a CAP and the landing airfield. He would also select a landing airfield much further to the rear. Simple and straight forward.
-
Luftwaffe doesnt need to vulch to win.
-
Accuracy and Playability are the main factors in an event's design. If you are a CM and do not know this, I pity the CM team. The no fly zone in Frame 3 more so than the rest of the frames severely killed the playability factor. Accurate? Maybe so. Fun and playable for those stationed a sector away from the no fly zone? Hell no.
Designers must find a happy medium between playability (fun) and historical accuracy. I preach this all the time. Shifty's last month was good. Frame 1 was a little odd but 2 and 3 were very good.
Your application is in the mail I take it? Your opinions are very strong so I'm assuming you've roughed out some ideas to make a really good FSO?
I get it Perd. You want a fight at the beginning, at the end, and in the middle.
Basically what would be ideal then is to throw out the notion of any historical context other then the planes. A generic map with generic targets and a plane set that's as even as you can make it between Allied and Axis so that it can be proven once and for all that the Axis is better or the Allies. You throw any historical context out of it.
And that's fine if that's all you want.
You brought ECA into the discussion. OK since I had something to do with that one, here was the intent. It's summer of 43 and the Germans are on the defensive as the USAAF is into the game and the heavies are flying. The RAF in the meantime is sending over medium bombers and fighters to try and stir the Luftwaffe up in a war of attrition. The Luftwaffe has to pick and choose as they don't have the resources and in some cases it makes no sense to lose pilots to essentially irritation raids. To try and keep the RAF on their heels a bit the LW has small numbers of 190 fighter bombers that they send to coastal towns like Hastings just to tie up RAF resources patrolling for them.
The fight was meant to be over France. The Luftwaffe wasn't going over England hitting bases. The advantages they had were picking and choosing where and when they intercepted raids. They had alt and better radar cover as they were fighting over their own turf. it also meant more sorties for them as they didn't have to fly as far. Historically the Allies had the advantage of numbers to offset the lower sorties flown. There is no way to make that work in a scenario that has a historical context to it. So the Allies go into it knowing it's going to be fighting uphill. Historically the Luftwaffe from 41-43 was able to fight that battle of attrition and stay ahead. If an RAF pilot went down and survived it was over France and he was evading or a POW. If a Luftwaffe driver went down and survived he was back at his base and in a new plane.
So in the end the only Allied advantages are knowing that once they get back across the Channel they are able to get down as the Luftwaffe wasn't following them back. The Luftwaffe generally broke off combat for fuel reasons before that and went home to prepare for the next raid.
The problem seems to be the Luftwaffe guys are only looking at it from that perspective. If you get 4 sorties in to an Allied pilot's 1 sortie that's a huge difference. Say it's 50 fighters aside. The luftwaffe ends up with 200 sorties to 50 for the Allies. So it would make some sense that the Allies over France would try and hit the Luftwaffe down low or at their fields to try and offset that sortie differential. It's what they did historically. Yet you don't find 109s or 190s over England shooting up Allied birds at their airfields.
In the end for me it's the desire to provide an opportunity within a scenario to encounter things that happened for real as best we can provide them in a computer game based scenario.
We'll be encountering the same issues in DGS II. For those of us putting this one on, the history matters. We want those encounters to take place. I want to know Stampf is sucked into the cockpit of his 190 when he sees the first formation of bombers covered with escorts as I hope to be sucked into the cockpit of my 51 the same way.
In the end it's about trade offs. The Luftwaffe will have most of the advantages as they are fighting over their own turf and can generate far more fighter sorties then the Allies can due to the distance traveled for the Allied Fighters. The Allied fighters if they can survive the initial encounters with the Luftwaffe fighters will be able to attempt to stop the second waves by going after them down low as they did historically. Each side has options and how they work together to use those options is usually the indicator of who has the edge.
In the end folks need to decide though if it's all about making it a 50/50 even fight with both on offense and defense. If so, come up with a Generic map that has fields the same distance away so that everyone has exactly the same advantages and disadvantages at take off. Throw out any pretense of history other then the plane set time frame. Then you can fly and drink with your buddies and kill to your hearts content anywhere on the map.
-
Your application is in the mail I take it? Your opinions are very strong so I'm assuming you've roughed out some ideas to make a really good FSO?
I get it Perd. You want a fight at the beginning, at the end, and in the middle.
Basically what would be ideal then is to throw out the notion of any historical context other then the planes. A generic map with generic targets and a plane set that's as even as you can make it between Allied and Axis so that it can be proven once and for all that the Axis is better or the Allies. You throw any historical context out of it.
And that's fine if that's all you want.
You brought ECA into the discussion. OK since I had something to do with that one, here was the intent. It's summer of 43 and the Germans are on the defensive as the USAAF is into the game and the heavies are flying. The RAF in the meantime is sending over medium bombers and fighters to try and stir the Luftwaffe up in a war of attrition. The Luftwaffe has to pick and choose as they don't have the resources and in some cases it makes no sense to lose pilots to essentially irritation raids. To try and keep the RAF on their heels a bit the LW has small numbers of 190 fighter bombers that they send to coastal towns like Hastings just to tie up RAF resources patrolling for them.
The fight was meant to be over France. The Luftwaffe wasn't going over England hitting bases. The advantages they had were picking and choosing where and when they intercepted raids. They had alt and better radar cover as they were fighting over their own turf. it also meant more sorties for them as they didn't have to fly as far. Historically the Allies had the advantage of numbers to offset the lower sorties flown. There is no way to make that work in a scenario that has a historical context to it. So the Allies go into it knowing it's going to be fighting uphill. Historically the Luftwaffe from 41-43 was able to fight that battle of attrition and stay ahead. If an RAF pilot went down and survived it was over France and he was evading or a POW. If a Luftwaffe driver went down and survived he was back at his base and in a new plane.
So in the end the only Allied advantages are knowing that once they get back across the Channel they are able to get down as the Luftwaffe wasn't following them back. The Luftwaffe generally broke off combat for fuel reasons before that and went home to prepare for the next raid.
The problem seems to be the Luftwaffe guys are only looking at it from that perspective. If you get 4 sorties in to an Allied pilot's 1 sortie that's a huge difference. Say it's 50 fighters aside. The luftwaffe ends up with 200 sorties to 50 for the Allies. So it would make some sense that the Allies over France would try and hit the Luftwaffe down low or at their fields to try and offset that sortie differential. It's what they did historically. Yet you don't find 109s or 190s over England shooting up Allied birds at their airfields.
In the end for me it's the desire to provide an opportunity within a scenario to encounter things that happened for real as best we can provide them in a computer game based scenario.
We'll be encountering the same issues in DGS II. For those of us putting this one on, the history matters. We want those encounters to take place. I want to know Stampf is sucked into the cockpit of his 190 when he sees the first formation of bombers covered with escorts as I hope to be sucked into the cockpit of my 51 the same way.
In the end it's about trade offs. The Luftwaffe will have most of the advantages as they are fighting over their own turf and can generate far more fighter sorties then the Allies can due to the distance traveled for the Allied Fighters. The Allied fighters if they can survive the initial encounters with the Luftwaffe fighters will be able to attempt to stop the second waves by going after them down low as they did historically. Each side has options and how they work together to use those options is usually the indicator of who has the edge.
In the end folks need to decide though if it's all about making it a 50/50 even fight with both on offense and defense. If so, come up with a Generic map that has fields the same distance away so that everyone has exactly the same advantages and disadvantages at take off. Throw out any pretense of history other then the plane set time frame. Then you can fly and drink with your buddies and kill to your hearts content anywhere on the map.
Historical argument work only if the entire event is totally 100% historical. There has been certain exceptions made for fun. ECA turned into people hiding in England that is fun that makes me want to spend my time playing. It was almost if we were on the offense and the RAF was on the defensive with an arbitrary no fly zone. Perd didnt say it needed to be as you describe it just needed more balance.
We are not reenactors we shouldn't try and do the exact things the Luft or allies did. We should be making our own choices and seeing how the battle could have gone better or worse with different choices.
Half the map with targets a sector from the no fly zone is not the answer nor is it "historical."
-
So taking out any historical context is the way to go. As for ECA since you don't have any idea what went on behind the scenes, the best I can tell you is it did not run as the design intended. It was a hard lesson learned in not letting the folks from the cheap seats run you over with all their expertise. They aren't ever going to be happy anyway so I should have stood my ground. It would have been a totally different event. I won't make that mistake again.
But you seem to be missing the point. If there is no Historical aspect to it then you can run your perfectly even 50/50 offense defense anything goes bit. if that's what you want, then so be it. To me that would really spell the end to special events
It's never going to be a reenactment. To do that means using correct numbers and in that regard it was never fair from the Blitzkrieg to Nagasaki. No one would show. if we ever did try that with a late ware bomber campaign I know I'd then fly Luftwaffe, just to get a feel as to what it must to have been like to go up against those odds. With the numbers balance and the up to 4 to 1 fighter sortie difference for the Luftwaffe that just is never the case.
I would genuinely love for you gents to rough out a design of what you see as how it should be done however. I'd be curious how you'd do it. With your strong opinions on this stuff I imagine you have done it already.
To try and present the chance to connect the history with this cartoon game we play will always be important to the design guys. What's the point otherwise? You can stay in the MA and shoot to your hearts content.
-
So taking out any historical context is the way to go. As for ECA since you don't have any idea what went on behind the scenes, the best I can tell you is it did not run as the design intended. It was a hard lesson learned in not letting the folks from the cheap seats run you over with all their expertise. They aren't ever going to be happy anyway so I should have stood my ground. It would have been a totally different event. I won't make that mistake again.
But you seem to be missing the point. If there is no Historical aspect to it then you can run your perfectly even 50/50 offense defense anything goes bit. if that's what you want, then so be it. To me that would really spell the end to special events
It's never going to be a reenactment. To do that means using correct numbers and in that regard it was never fair from the Blitzkrieg to Nagasaki. No one would show. if we ever did try that with a late ware bomber campaign I know I'd then fly Luftwaffe, just to get a feel as to what it must to have been like to go up against those odds. With the numbers balance and the up to 4 to 1 fighter sortie difference for the Luftwaffe that just is never the case.
I would genuinely love for you gents to rough out a design of what you see as how it should be done however. I'd be curious how you'd do it. With your strong opinions on this stuff I imagine you have done it already.
To try and present the chance to connect the history with this cartoon game we play will always be important to the design guys. What's the point otherwise? You can stay in the MA and shoot to your hearts content.
I think you missed my point rather than the other way around. It surprises me that you pass the buck for the failure of ECA to others. It was bad for everyone there was not many luft pilots as well. So it was obviously no fun for every body. There is no historical connection with a no fly-zone which is the issue of this thread. Once again no one is saying to wipe out "historical context" just a better balance.
-
I think you missed my point rather than the other way around. It surprises me that you pass the buck for the failure of ECA to others. It was bad for everyone there was not many luft pilots as well. So it was obviously no fun for every body. There is no historical connection with a no fly-zone which is the issue of this thread. Once again no one is saying to wipe out "historical context" just a better balance.
The fact that you can make a statement that it was no fun for anybody seems a bit strong. I had a lot of folks who enjoyed it. As I said it was a hard lesson learned and certainly was my mistake in listening to all the bbs experts.
In terms of no fly zones most definitely there were. The difference is when you don't have the numbers to create them with a boatload of fighters that would have been there to cover the withdrawal you have to improvise. There was a reason the LW was hiding their fighters in the trees while the Allies weren't.
You are flying Allied in DGS Sukov. Do you think you'll see as much action and get as many sorties in as Perdweeb flying Axis? How do you balance that? Or is the trade off the different experience you'll get flying that Jug? Do you think it will be fair?
-
reason for the no-fly zone........one time only, although i know you all know why it's there.
in the case of my set, all allied aircraft launched from england. they climbed to altitude over the channel. they were at full speed, fully formed up, and had a fighter sweep out in front of them long before they reached germany. this is impossible for us to do, if for no other reason, than the 2 hour time limit.
on egress, the allies would've been followed, and harassed for a couple hundred miles, but never would the luftwaffe have followed them all the way to the channel, much less crossed it to england. if for no other reason, than fuel, so to adapt, we launched from bases in europe. the no-fly simulated the channel, as best as we could make it.
it's not perfect, but it works. it lets us keep some history in the set, with allowances for flyability within our sim.
the funny thing is when i look at the numbers........our cartoon world pretty closely simulated the real thing.
i'm effing proud of the way this set went, to be honest. i'm also pretty dam proud to have been asked to join the cm team.
i'm glad you guys all enjoyed it, and i hope to make my next one better for you guys. :salute
that's all i have to say, and i'm out of this one now. :salute :cheers:
-
The fact that you can make a statement that it was no fun for anybody seems a bit strong. I had a lot of folks who enjoyed it. As I said it was a hard lesson learned and certainly was my mistake in listening to all the bbs experts.
In terms of no fly zones most definitely there were. The difference is when you don't have the numbers to create them with a boatload of fighters that would have been there to cover the withdrawal you have to improvise. There was a reason the LW was hiding their fighters in the trees while the Allies weren't.
You are flying Allied in DGS Sukov. Do you think you'll see as much action and get as many sorties in as Perdweeb flying Axis? How do you balance that? Or is the trade off the different experience you'll get flying that Jug? Do you think it will be fair?
No I will not get as many I know for a fact. I have already argued my position on the upcoming scenario. I am flying jugs for a different experience although that doesn't have any bearing in this conversation.
reason for the no-fly zone........one time only, although i know you all know why it's there.
in the case of my set, all allied aircraft launched from england. they climbed to altitude over the channel. they were at full speed, fully formed up, and had a fighter sweep out in front of them long before they reached germany. this is impossible for us to do, if for no other reason, than the 2 hour time limit.
on egress, the allies would've been followed, and harassed for a couple hundred miles, but never would the luftwaffe have followed them all the way to the channel, much less crossed it to england. if for no other reason, than fuel, so to adapt, we launched from bases in europe. the no-fly simulated the channel, as best as we could make it.
it's not perfect, but it works. it lets us keep some history in the set, with allowances for flyability within our sim.
the funny thing is when i look at the numbers........our cartoon world pretty closely simulated the real thing.
i'm effing proud of the way this set went, to be honest. i'm also pretty dam proud to have been asked to join the cm team.
i'm glad you guys all enjoyed it, and i hope to make my next one better for you guys. :salute
that's all i have to say, and i'm out of this one now. :salute :cheers:
Well half the map does not simulate the channel. Nor does having targets a sector away from the no fly zone. I understand fly no fly zones I really do just not how much space they need.
I see you have picked up the same lines as guppy and others "the numbers seem close so that validates the setup." No truth to that.
-
This thread is awesome!
Someone please tell me again why one side is afforded an opportunity to vulch landing aircraft while the other must remain miles and miles away from their opponent's bases after the action has commenced?
Something as simple as a no vulching, period, rule may balance this issue.
No-fly for beginning of frame is fine and understandable but having a "safety net" to run back to after running out of bombs will be taken advantage of. If you get caught with your pants down on the way home, you planned your egress point poorly.
In fact, why make them land at all? Why not just bail after crossing the threshold of the no-fly zone instead of flying the extra dozens of miles back to the field in a straight line with nothing else to do? If the luft flyers do not have enough gas to make it back, sorry but no landing or team points for him, poo poo on your poor fuel management.
-
So just for fun design me a fair and balanced 1944 8th vs the Luftwaffe just so I can understand how it's done. You speak in such absolutes that you clearly have thought this through. I genuinely would like to see it. Just one frame is enough. Maybe march 6, 1944 to Berlin. Naturally everyone will have the same opportunities for the "win".
-
So just for fun design me a fair and balanced 1944 8th vs the Luftwaffe just so I can understand how it's done. You speak in such absolutes that you clearly have thought this through. I genuinely would like to see it. Just one frame is enough. Maybe march 6, 1944 to Berlin. Naturally everyone will have the same opportunities for the "win".
Ok take a marker and change the no fly zone to maybe 2 sectors in the back. Ta-Da!
-
Are you suggesting fuel management wasn't an issue for the Luftwaffe? There was a reason they were not vulching Allied fields. Part of that was range. Where is the battle taking place Von messa?
Just say it. You want a dead even 50/50 battle on a neutral map with the only the plane sets being historical. Again that's all good if that's what FSO's are about. I don't believe they are. I know scenarios aren't going to be that way, nor should they be.
I'm done with this. I do look forward to seeing that all encompassing design to educate me however. And I remind myself often that it's the same guys with all the answers that do most of the complaining.
-
Are you suggesting fuel management wasn't an issue for the Luftwaffe? There was a reason they were not vulching Allied fields. Part of that was range. Where is the battle taking place Von messa?
Just say it. You want a dead even 50/50 battle on a neutral map with the only the plane sets being historical. Again that's all good if that's what FSO's are about. I don't believe they are. I know scenarios aren't going to be that way, nor should they be.
I'm done with this. I do look forward to seeing that all encompassing design to educate me however. And I remind myself often that it's the same guys with all the answers that do most of the complaining.
Ha! Well ok then take your ball and go home. We want fun if that is a bad thing to you then so be it. You jump to the extreme end of the argument just like "the guys with all the answers" you claim we are. The entire design was not flawed just the no fly zone.
You know there is a fuel burn rate option.
This thread may be proof of a certain persons post about certain people.
-
JG54 didn't have a problem with the no fly zone. JG54 skirted the edge of it and did not cross it. wasn't a problem. we had fun and we understood the no fly zone. made the whole setup more interesting as far as I'm concerned.
-
I may speak in absolutes, but your patronizing me is not any less worthy of rebuking.
As someone in a position of "authority", I don't expect you to patronize me or foist the responsibilities that you have volunteered to burden upon me or other players with on off-handed "Let's see if you can do better". If I wanted that responsibility, I would have volunteered to be a CM.
I, as a player, count upon you to hear the ideas of the special events community and take their ideas into account when designing the events and not simply dismiss them while offering a smug "That's the way it is and that's the way it will be" explanation. If there is more than one person, or a group of people that would like to see some tweaking in some areas, it just might be worth listening to. While I understand that there cannot be scenarios, or special events, with a CM team also bear in mind that these things need a player base to exist, as well. In addition, for these events to flourish, you need a semi-happy player base. Everyone here is a volunteer, including the guys in the "cheap seats" so please stop patronizing me, or anyone else and act like a leader instead of trying to veil insults, sarcasm and facetiousness in soft language such as:
So just for fun design me a fair and balanced 1944 8th vs the Luftwaffe just so I can understand how it's done. You speak in such absolutes that you clearly have thought this through. I genuinely would like to see it. Just one frame is enough. Maybe march 6, 1944 to Berlin. Naturally everyone will have the same opportunities for the "win".
As a leader, I expect more from you. On the other hand, don't expect it from me. After all, I am only one of the guys in the "cheap seats" and would not be expected to held accountable to the same standards as someone that has been volunteered to be a leader.
If ones flies in scenarios for "the win", one has already lost.
There is nothing to "win". If there must be some quantification of winning, it would have to be based upon the level of fun and excitement everyone has during the event. The players that play to "win" are the ones that traditionally try to bend, push or otherwise test the limits of the rules and do whatever they can to earn the most points for the big "W", which may be fine for the MA, but is akin to pissing on everyone that participates in special events.
Chasing NOE buffs on the edges of maps, watch-dogging those violating alt-caps, having to track how many lives someone has used and chasing foes to a certain point where they are free and clear from engagement are all examples of the type of "win" behavior that have been observed in special events and can be detrimental to the whole concept of what having fun in a scenario is all about.
Those types of behavior, or limiting factors in an event is what makes me want to set-aside those few hours on a Saturday afternoon for quality time with my family instead of wasting my time bickering about who broke which rules.
A concept that you, as a parent, can surely relate to.
-
Von that you would assume that all those things aren't taken into account is too bad because they are. It gets tiring when you see the effort folks put into these things and it's the same guys griping no matter what you do. What I wish for just a second is that they'd look at the overall picture and not just is fun for them.
My mistake was the same one I always make and that is thinking that discussing it would ever make a difference. Cap worked his tail off on this and got input from all kinds of people. And yep everyone is doing it on their own time to try and contribute something back to the game.
Since you described exactly what events mean to me, then you understand the frustration. And again my mistake was engaging in the discussion with folks who consistently find fault and rarely seem to appreciate the effort folks put in to make these things go. And that is why I said I'm done with it. I respect your opinion so I figure you deserve a reply
-
Von that you would assume that all those things aren't taken into account is too bad because they are. It gets tiring when you see the effort folks put into these things and it's the same guys griping no matter what you do. What I wish for just a second is that they'd look at the overall picture and not just is fun for them.
My mistake was the same one I always make and that is thinking that discussing it would ever make a difference. Cap worked his tail off on this and got input from all kinds of people. And yep everyone is doing it on their own time to try and contribute something back to the game.
Since you described exactly what events mean to me, then you understand the frustration. And again my mistake was engaging in the discussion with folks who consistently find fault and rarely seem to appreciate the effort folks put in to make these things go. And that is why I said I'm done with it. I respect your opinion so I figure you deserve a reply
As an aficionado of military history, I know you understand the concept of how gripes go uphill, not downhill. :)
I appreciate the effort and time that the designers put into the projects to put them together.
I also appreciate the same from the players that make it "go".
Folks will complain. It is part of being a leader. It's the crappy part.
-
Von that you would assume that all those things aren't taken into account is too bad because they are. It gets tiring when you see the effort folks put into these things and it's the same guys griping no matter what you do. What I wish for just a second is that they'd look at the overall picture and not just is fun for them.
My mistake was the same one I always make and that is thinking that discussing it would ever make a difference. Cap worked his tail off on this and got input from all kinds of people. And yep everyone is doing it on their own time to try and contribute something back to the game.
Since you described exactly what events mean to me, then you understand the frustration. And again my mistake was engaging in the discussion with folks who consistently find fault and rarely seem to appreciate the effort folks put in to make these things go. And that is why I said I'm done with it. I respect your opinion so I figure you deserve a reply
You assume a lot.
-
Really? I don't know about Perdue...but YES...I know I want to follow the enemy out and nail his arse when he's landing. Just like this from last night:
aztec
23:24:23 Departed from Field #52 in a Fw 190A-8
00:12:01 Takes on fuel/ammo/ord at field #47.
00:33:21 Helps Stampf shoot down Badmood.
00:39:54 Helps Ernst21 shoot down McTunes.
00:43:38 Was shot down by 12High (exploded).
8 of us were gear down and landing when the vultching 38's came in. Az couldn't tower in time.
If you want to pick a fight or argue an opinion, at least keep it real. Better yet...just keep it real.
Lets see, I van remember 1 FSO the allies did just that. They followed us to our field and vulchede us on landing so I say get rid of the no fly zones and let it be to the squads Co's discretion.
-
Lets see, I van remember 1 FSO the allies did just that. They followed us to our field and vulchede us on landing so I say get rid of the no fly zones and let it be to the squads Co's discretion.
I can think of a few times axes has done it too :devil
-
I'm sure :devil