Aces High Bulletin Board
Special Events Forums => Friday Squad Operations => Topic started by: Bino on March 17, 2013, 08:57:33 AM
-
Here are the final scores for the March 2013 FSO, "The Last Battle Of Kharkov":
(http://kenshelby.us/fso-2013-03/frame-1-score.jpg)
(http://kenshelby.us/fso-2013-03/frame-2-score.jpg)
(http://kenshelby.us/fso-2013-03/frame-3-score.jpg)
Here are the spreadsheets with the details of how the scores were tallied:
http://kenshelby.us/fso-2013-03/frame-1-score.xlsx (http://kenshelby.us/fso-2013-03/frame-1-score.xlsx)
http://kenshelby.us/fso-2013-03/frame-2-score.xlsx (http://kenshelby.us/fso-2013-03/frame-2-score.xlsx)
http://kenshelby.us/fso-2013-03/frame-3-score.xlsx (http://kenshelby.us/fso-2013-03/frame-3-score.xlsx)
The controversy over "friendly fire" penalties seems to have been a tempest in a teapot. Most of the time, there are only one or two such kills on each side. (Ironically, in Frame Three I managed to stray in front of a squaddie while he was firing! Wagger got the kill when I ditched.) In Frame One, the Axis had one of those extremely rare mid-air bomb death events, which skewed the FF penalty a bit. But overall, friendly fire did not have a huge impact on the score.
Neither side paid much attention to the stipulation that re-arming could only be done at the active fields, so I decided not to equally penalize both sides. That seemed pretty pointless. While I did see a few complaints about the FuelBurnRateMult in this event, to accurately reflect the map scale it really should have been 2.0, and not the 1.4 that was selected. To paraphrase Douglas Adams: Russia is big, really, really big.
Hope you all enjoyed this one. :salute
-
I went the whole FSO without knowing the rearm at active fields bit. It must have slipped through the crack. I am very sorry for blatantly breaking a rule. It should have been mentioned after Frame 1 if it was a big problem. Again, sorry Ill be sure and take a closer look at future setups.
-
I had a lot of fun, even with flying stukas. What made it really fun was scoring my 101 kill and getting my oak leaves. :rock :joystick:
-
With the fuel burn set where it was and a requirement to return to takeoff base as well to rearm, I wouldn't even have bothered taking off. No exaggeration. FSO isn't about the geography of Europe.
<S>
-
With the fuel burn set where it was and a requirement to return to takeoff base as well to rearm, I wouldn't even have bothered taking off. No exaggeration. FSO isn't about the geography of Europe.
<S>
Agreed. We've run this setup a few times and the fuel burn is always a problem. It's just as hard to plan a frame around it as it is to fly and manage. It needs a tweak up. It's a two hour event and the current burn rate all but precludes any real action in hour two for either side. Stupid.
-
I went the whole FSO without knowing the rearm at active fields bit. It must have slipped through the crack. I am very sorry for blatantly breaking a rule. It should have been mentioned after Frame 1 if it was a big problem. Again, sorry Ill be sure and take a closer look at future setups.
I swore that I saw "rearm at any friendly field; land at any friendly field; get landing bonus only by landing at home field" in the objectives each week. :headscratch:
-
I swore that I saw "rearm at any friendly field; land at any friendly field; get landing bonus only by landing at home field" in the objectives each week. :headscratch:
Ditto. However since you said that you weren't counting them I guess it doesn't really matter now.
-
I swore that I saw "rearm at any friendly field; land at any friendly field; get landing bonus only by landing at home field" in the objectives each week. :headscratch:
Us too
-
Us too
Hell we even asked and that's what we were told.
-
Guilty here too...and Bino being the setup CM overlooked it too Friday night. I think we all did. One of those cases that our minds read the same thing every week, when it changes we missed it.
Sure enough though...went back and found it in Objectives. Really...shame on all of us. We should never have to ask anything come game night...we are all given the specifics and it is our responsibility as leaders to have the correct information available for our guys.
Moot point though this time...in so much as the fuel burn and distances did not allow for adherence to the rule anyway.
-
I swore that I saw "rearm at any friendly field; land at any friendly field; get landing bonus only by landing at home field" in the objectives each week. :headscratch:
Odd, not what I read, but then again ya .........Oh never mind
:salute
-
Odd, not what I read, but then again ya .........Oh never mind
:salute
Yep, went back and re-read the objectives. I was wrong; they said rearm/refuel only at home base. But then again, I was only the setup running the arena, not the admin/designer or a CiC - my job was to set up the arena and make sure you guys had a place to play. ;)
:salute
-
I understand that selectively modeling "realism" is part of what makes this game fun. Dealing with all the myriad minutiae of a completely accurate flight sim will not appeal to all. However, it seemed to me that introducing a modicum of reality about the vast distances of Russia would make this FSO more immersive. It looks like I was wrong. The comments in this thread on the fuel and range aspects of the design have been pretty uniformly negative. I will email the command staff of the FSO squads directly and ask for opinions, which I will collect and present here. Stay tuned.
As for the confusion about the re-arm/re-fuel rule of this design, it was very clearly spelled out in the objectives for each frame, which were both emailed to all squads and posted in this forum. For example:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,346586.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,346586.0.html)
-
I swore that I saw "rearm at any friendly field; land at any friendly field; get landing bonus only by landing at home field" in the objectives each week. :headscratch:
you're the CM, you tell me.
-
Wagger got the kill when I ditched.
Punishment was swift, and harsh, Herr Bino.
-
I understand that selectively modeling "realism" is part of what makes this game fun. Dealing with all the myriad minutiae of a completely accurate flight sim will not appeal to all......
Glad this conversation is happening actually. Some things to consider. It's a two hour frame with the idea of having to attack a target by T+60. Given the "vast" distances that the single engine planes have to travel the fuel burn forces better management in order to carry out the mission. This also equals traveling slower as you can't fly balls out to the target or you'll run out of fuel before you might make it home. The slower you fly the more time of the frame you consume. This all but precludes any follow up attacks and what you have is what you had the other night. A bunch of guys just flying around playing tag with each other far from home not really able to engage or travel to engage as they didn't have the fuel and or time to do it. This sucks. I'm sure everyone would agree.
Like the setup. But I gotta wonder what the CM group's convo was like after we ran this the first time? It wasn't any different then and yas left it as it was! Look, you're gonna have to pick your poison before you run this again. Either bump up the fuel burn or allow all friendly fields to be used. Not saying you have to double the burn but a little help for the planes with no legs to begin with is in order here. It's a no-brainer. They are what they are. Left as it is this is half an event at best. With a little tweaking you can fix it up just fine. You're just the men for the job! :aok :salute
-
Left as it is this is half an event at best.
This is the first FSO I've found to be a little unenjoyable, I would rather spend my Saturday afternoon with my kids than that.
-
This is the first FSO I've found to be a little unenjoyable, I would rather spend my Saturday afternoon with my kids than that.
It is Eastern Front, Allies are expected to get mauled and did so. Just like late war Pacific for Axis. We are expected to get whooped, and we manage to squeak some out here and there. For the most part, high F4U-4's and 1-C's you have to deal with in a Tony isnt very enjoyable. Yet, we still need both theaters in FSO. Late Pacific sucks for Axis, but we still do it and enjoy it. Eastern Front sucks for Allies, but it should be in the schedule because it did happen and should remain. There are only a few specific theaters/campaigns that are VERY even. We hit those a lot.
-
i blame it all on the allies. the missed base bonus landings, everything! its their fault! see what they do to us poor axis fighters! very sinful!! :D
-
It is Eastern Front, Allies are expected to get mauled and did so. Just like late war Pacific for Axis. We are expected to get whooped, and we manage to squeak some out here and there. For the most part, high F4U-4's and 1-C's you have to deal with in a Tony isnt very enjoyable. Yet, we still need both theaters in FSO. Late Pacific sucks for Axis, but we still do it and enjoy it. Eastern Front sucks for Allies, but it should be in the schedule because it did happen and should remain. There are only a few specific theaters/campaigns that are VERY even. We hit those a lot.
It was the fuel situation more than anything, it made it very hard to actually get a fight going, I was just pulling up on to your coit as I ran out of fuel trying to give the guys with a bit more fuel than me a chance to get some.
-
It is Eastern Front, Allies are expected to get mauled and did so. Just like late war Pacific for Axis. We are expected to get whooped, and we manage to squeak some out here and there. For the most part, high F4U-4's and 1-C's you have to deal with in a Tony isnt very enjoyable. Yet, we still need both theaters in FSO. Late Pacific sucks for Axis, but we still do it and enjoy it. Eastern Front sucks for Allies, but it should be in the schedule because it did happen and should remain. There are only a few specific theaters/campaigns that are VERY even. We hit those a lot.
You've missed his point (and mine) completely. It's about fuel settings and playability. Nothing else.
In this FSO if you were assigned an La5 (the only plane with performance comparable with the Axis fighter set) you rolled with 30 minutes fuel. For illustrative purposes only, I'll reference a task plucked from the last frame. "Defend V48, home field A10". There were home fields and tasks further apart, this one is about the median.
Your responsibility is to defend V48 for an hour.
It takes about 12-13 minutes to fly from 48 to 10 with typical conservative settings. If you fight for one minute on arrival and then check your fuel status at 5k during the fight you discover you now have 17 minutes fuel and you are about 12 minutes from the fuel pump and you are engaged in a fight right here and now.
As long as you don't touch wep (you're gone if you do) you can fight happily over the place you are required to defend for about 5 minutes in the first hour. Then what?
If you rush home and back, after refuelling, you could make it back in just under 30 minutes so you can defend for another 5.
You are supposed to defend that field for the first hour but in fact you can defend it for maybe 10 minutes if you don't do anything stupid like go full throttle or fight anybody.
What about other planes? Yep you get about another 9 minutes in a YakT, but an ammo load that says "take me home now" if you have to use it up on buffs or do a bit of speculative snap shooting. If you go chasing your opponent, say a full sector, you're a goner on fuel again.
The P39s were allowed to carry ord. Why? If they did they couldn't actually get to a target and back. Sheesh.
Things got better if you only had to fly 5 minutes or so to refuel (rearm anywhere notion) but not a lot. It probably allowed you to actually pursue a fight for that single sector out from the target. Any further out (as we proved to you in game) and everybody runs out of fuel either at the rearm pad, or tragically just before, with zero time for fighting.
On the way the rules were written on rearming, I suggest if it is desirable to get a message across that where something is retricted unusually then it has to be written in supporting context.
8.) Planes may re-arm (or "hot pad") at any friendly active airbase.
This looks permissive in context. Looking forensically for the restriction works, but it isn't a normal thought process.
The rule might convey the meaning a lot more clearly if written in just a slightly different manner:
8.) Planes may re-arm (or "hot pad") only at those airbases nominated as "active".