Aces High Bulletin Board
Special Events Forums => Scenario General => Topic started by: Brooke on March 21, 2017, 11:27:48 AM
-
Please rate Hell Over the Hinterland.
If you played in it, please rate this scenario by giving it a number in the range of -5 (absolutely hated it), to 0 (could take it or leave it), to +5 (absolutely loved it).
-
+2/3. It was good. There was a little too much running around avoiding the enemy at times, in frame 3 particularly for my liking. Other than that, no concrete complaints.
Wiley.
-
surely your Luft superiors were at fault for that and not the design team?
I give it +3 it was a bit of a late war monster slugfest. Felt like the MA at times what with the field distances and everyone on our team getting killed by manned acks / auto acks.
-
-3
-
+3
-
-1, also yes the design definitely forced the fight into what it was. With only half of our attack aircraft for most of the fight only when we outnumbered the Allies did we finally win in the air and still lost in points. So yes the design did force the Axis to fight in a particular way. Also never understood why trying to keep A8s out the serious engagements against 51 and 47D25s would be frowned upon, rest assured I'll put JG11 right in the middle of it next time so y'all can enjoy y'all's Saturdays quicker.
Sent from my XT1058 using Tapatalk
-
0
-
+5 for the fights. Great people to fly with, great opponents.
-5 for the design. 3 sectors apart, horrible scoring method, no effort on the design whatsoever.
Wash.
-
surely your Luft superiors were at fault for that and not the design team?
I give it +3 it was a bit of a late war monster slugfest. Felt like the MA at times what with the field distances and everyone on our team getting killed by manned acks / auto acks.
Complaining about the design when we were given hours of time to milk run objects without any enemy opposition.....but hey that's none of my business...
(https://imgflip.com/s/meme/But-Thats-None-Of-My-Business.jpg)
+3 Luft could have used 2 more TA152 instead of as many A8 to account for Bombers and the P51/Spitfire/Temps.
-
I was pretty unhappy from the get go, with advertised planes being removed arbitrarily after a vote. I appreciated an attempt was made to rectify.
I decided not to even bother to register or commit any time to it but rather walk on if I had nothing better to do.
I agree with the comments about the scoring, there was just no way the Axis was gonna win and if you look at the frame's scoring you can see how disparate it is.
The only reason I walked on was the chance to fly with some people I don't normally get to fly with. That was the only draw for me.
Then knowing Axis would be short in Frame 4 I showed up but really wasn't into it.
Hoping the next one looks promising.
-
-3
Unbalanced plane set by the numbers.
Bogus allowance for more attacker and bomber lives - promoted runaway scoring.
Critically flawed scoring system.
-
-3
Unbalanced plane set by the numbers.
Bogus allowance for more attacker and bomber lives - promoted runaway scoring.
Critically flawed scoring system.
-3 for same reasons.
Had some fun fights, but…
-
However I score this, I'd fly again in a heartbeat. Scenarios are AH's best experience.
+1 for the setting (terrain, plane set): late war ETO plays into AH's strengths, and that Germany terrain is just jaw droppingly beautiful. Very cool with so many forested areas and a lot of uneven topography - NOE missions really required concentration. Would've loved even more plane types like the A-20, Spit 9, P-51B, P-47D-25, P-38J, 190A5, 109G06, maybe even a couple Ar234s to keep the Allies busy in their own backfield.
+1 for command staff: Always a difficult position, but I thought we had great leaders from the top right down to the flight leads. I'd bet the Allies did too.
-1 for scoring/balance: something was off, way off. Some theoretical assumptions didn't hold against experience; hoping to learn from this. Scoring isn't everything, but I think a few more scenarios with scoring/balance off by this much will harm participation eventually. I know designers always strive for a fair engagement but the magnitude of score difference, even when the Axis outnumbered the Allies, was just too great.
-1 for the perk planes: I loved the idea of a few Tempests and Ta152s in the mix, but those perk planes with the talented sticks driving them became force multipliers that were just too hard to account for.
-1 for the "MA" feel: I felt the AO was too small - we were in contact with enemy forces too early after launching I thought. Radar gives away too much info; there was very little "fog of war" that I remember in earlier scenarios. Also, we jumped all over as a unit - landing at one field and then upping quickly again at an airfield on the other side of the map felt a little MA-like.
Adding those up gives my overall rating as a -1, but I still enjoyed the scenario a lot.
-
+2
Only disliked manned guns as a p47 attack pilot. Otherwise had a blast.
(individual results may vary, be sure to consult your squad CO before attempting scenarios)
-
from -5 to +5 with 0 neutral, I'd say +1. I say that mostly because of the plane setup. I think the balance wasn't there. The fields were too close and the ability for one side to score was just so much higher than the other. I also have a bit of a problem when a scenario is just every-plane-in-the-arena-slammed-into-one-sector, and that's hard to avoid sometimes but something about the nature of this one just lent it to devolving into that kind of engagement repeatedly.
-
+2
-
Lets see......
What scenario?
You mean that 4 saturday snapshot?
Scenario from a spreadsheet....what a damn waste.
-
LOL I actually said that in the scenario. It felt more like a Snap Shot.
I enjoy Scenarios when I can fly them. This one I would give a 0.
-
+5
-
surely your Luft superiors were at fault for that and not the design team?
Well, technically I think the root cause is survival bonuses. Sometimes people seem to have a tendency to move awfully far down the "preserve your aircraft" path. Just my $0.02.
On the flipside, I don't like stupid suicidal gameplay either, so I don't quite know where the balance is.
Wiley.
-
Yea I agree with SIM and Shuffler
It was a snapshot with the same thing 4 Saturdays in a row.
-
+2. Needed more Lufties for bomber interdiction. Finns were awesome, and the Axis that we did see gave it a good shot, but 5 or 6 bombers scoring the fewest points for the Allied side seemed pretty weird. I'd fly it again though.
-
Folks I am just posting this as an outsider. Impartial observer. Being outside I've had time to look at the Scenario as a whole. And how it is now designed and fought. I no longer have an account and I doubt I will return in the future.
This is of no consequence, I just tired of the game. Which eventually will happen to each and every one of you. I still have a deep passion for the History of what actually occurred in the skies over Europe during WWII. That will never
change.
So......food for thought. There are some huge problems that I can see now as being troublesome. Again, I have no axe to grind or a dog in the hunt. What I have to say is of little consequence as I am no longer a member of the Community.
Consequently I do not wish or expect a reply. This is just food for thought as I stated above. Think as you wish.
1.) Attendance: Very low numbers. For instance. In DGS I had almost half as many (25) in my P47 squadron as you had participate in this Scenario. The same could be said for all axis and allied squadrons.
At that time we had to increase Squadron size because of those on both sides wanting to participate. Someone mentioned Snap Shot. At this time it appears that is what a Scenario has become. Remember
everyone has access to these Boards. What has been posted can actually deter someone new, or older in age from participating. The childishness and name calling can be a deterrent.
2.) Design: Don't blame the Designers. Blame it instead on the Community. Not what is said or the name calling. The Community as a whole does not participate in numbers as they have in the past. For instance
if memory serves we had more participants in fighters in DGS in four allied squadrons then we've had in the past three or four, maybe more scenarios. Not including Axis fighters and entire Bomb Groups. Now why
do you expect a designer to develop a scenario with a map larger then the one you just fought over? You hold the design to the limitations. The design is limited or handcuffed by the low turnout of players. That is why
fighting occurs chiefly in one grid. Limits. There aren't enough participants to enlarge anything. If the map were larger with the low numbers everyone could go into auto level and take a nap. So the design is effected
by what a mere maybe 80 players can accomplish as opposed to between the 200 and 300 we used to have in participants.
3.) Gaming. As always everything changes. In the past most of us who got into flight sims were more interested in the History. Hey! Things change. Now with the advent of cell phones, iPads etc. we have instantaneous
information. Society has changed a great deal in the past 15 years or so. Instant gratification is now the norm. I am not saying it is good or bad, but patience seems to be becoming rare. Now everyone gets a trophy.
As an impartial observer, to me the great MMOG combat flight sim has become a first person shooter. With stars awarded and advertisements when landing the whole world can read. I don't think there was a HUD in Gabby's
P47 and one in the control tower that read "Gabreski has landed 5 kills in his P47D25 of the 56th fighter Squadron." AH is a game period. The only time it is elevated is in a so called Scenario. There are no more Scenarios.
The game just doesn't have enough people interested to actually participate in a Scenario. This definitely handcuffs the design and causes angst amongst the participants. It is the Community that is at fault not the designers.
Again I have nothing to gain as I have left the Community. What my thoughts are, are of little consequence to the Community. It is the Community that has a great deal to gain. Decide what YOU want. It is the Community that either makes it succeed or fail. Melee or Special Event. It's up to you.
-
+3
I had a great time and will fly the next one if possible.
The scores suggest that the Axis was at a significant disadvantage, with multiple reasons voiced here.
In the end though, I got to fly with a great new group of folks, and a few of the air battles were pretty intense. :aok
-
I just tired of the game. Which eventually will happen to each and every one of you.
Not me! :aok
I've been flying online since 1988 and look forward to a lot more from here. :banana:
(Still wishing you would join us in some scenarios, though, one day.)
-
See Rule #4
-
0 Rating
I have only been flying with the community for a little over a year and have flown most of scenario's since i started. I was fully over this scenario before it started. The issues with the plane set and overal scenario plan have been beat to death so i won't go into them. Maybe i am imagining it but, there seems to be a progression in the last couple of scenario's where the Axis has been handicaped further and further.
I ended up flying two frames in this scenario because of the numbers issues for the Axis side i saw, I was not going to fly in it at all. My hope would be that in future scenario's we simplify the scoring and allow both sides to beat the snot out of each other with as balanced of sides as possible.
-
1.) Attendance: Very low numbers. For instance. In DGS I had almost half as many (25) in my P47 squadron as you had participate in this Scenario.
As you say, that does make it hard to balance things.
With 40 guys vs. 40 guys, variability in outcome is higher than if you have 150 vs. 150, and a few guys performing as outliers have a bigger effect.
Also, it is just very hard to numerically balance. +/- a few guys now is significant. +/- 3 is +/- 10% of a 30-person fighter force. Being 4 guys down in a 10-person attack effort is a 40% reduction of your scoring ability.
3.) Gaming.
I do also think that folks get too hung up who got more points and the idea that scenarios need to be perfectly balanced. Scenarios can't be perfectly balanced -- they will always have different things on one side than the other. Most historical battles involved one side having a lot more aircraft than the other. Scenarios -- even ones folks think are not balanced -- are way more balanced than the historical battle they are themed on. I balance them as best I can figure, but that will always have a lot of variability in it.
-
Maybe i am imagining it but, there seems to be a progression in the last couple of scenario's where the Axis has been handicaped further and further.
Tunisia 1943. The axis won all four phases by a large margin.
Battle of the Dnieper. Draw.
My hope would be that in future scenario's we simplify the scoring
This scenario has a simple scoring system compared to the collection of all scenarios. It is just 1 point per kill and X points per object destroyed, which is about as simple as we can go for a scenario. Players themselves can score it from the published log without a lot of effort. There are many scenarios in the past where a player could not score it, as it was based on more than shows up in the public log, or would take a large amount of work.
Here are all past scenarios and writeups, which includes scoring systems:
http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/scenarios.html
and allow both sides to beat the snot out of each other with as balanced of sides as possible.
That is always the goal. It was the goal with this one, too.
-
From an Allied bomber view I'd say +3.
The first three frames we had lots of fighter cover and not too much opposition. It was stroll in, drop on target, fly back.
Frame 4 was more like it though. Fighter cover but lots of enemy fighters attacking. Had to man guns and do some serious shooting. Took damage and limped home, if possible. Not sure what changed, but the last frame was what I expect from scenario bombing.
-
+5
-
+3
-
This scenario was pretty good from my point of view. The action was good. It provided a slightly different operating environment than normal which was refreshing.
I give it a 2.5+. It was fun for me.
I came into this thing without any of the buildup that seems to have taken place. I ran the Attack Jug squad and what I expected to happen, never did. I expected to be intercepted early and often. Over 4 frames we ran 12 missions to various targets. Not one of those missions was intercepted by the Axis. This surprised me as I looked at the scoring it it was quite apparent that we had the ability to inflict tremendous amounts of damage (as much or more than the bombers). We could have easily doubled the heavy runs we made but it became obvious quite quickly that the only resistance was the manned guns so we often switched to escorts after dropping ordinance. We, therefore, added to the overall fighter strength of the Allies.
It appears the Axis focused their resources in stopping bomber groups which seems to be the major point of contention with regards to balance/score. This seems legitimate. I'm not a fan of beating up on the people who design these things. I'm exceedingly happy just to have the sandbox to play in. The overall feeling I get after reading some of the threads seems to be to shoot the messenger. I'm more of a person who likes to say "how can we make it better?"
I don't think we should throw the baby out with the bath water. I'd LOVE to run this one again with a couple tweaks...
1. Increase the down time of the targets. This will add a little more strategy. I understand the idea that the operation area is pretty small and the down times were set to simulate close air support role.
2. Lets get the Vehicle guys involved too! To balance things out, let the bomber pilots fly with the Allies and let's give the tankers to the Axis to simulate the Germans trying to break out of the bulge. Set up a couple spawns where the Germans have to take a town or simply do as much damage as possible. Throw some spotter aircraft and some ground attack and you've got a recipe for some serious potential fun.
-
This scenario was pretty good from my point of view. The action was good. It provided a slightly different operating environment than normal which was refreshing.
I give it a 2.5+. It was fun for me.
I came into this thing without any of the buildup that seems to have taken place. I ran the Attack Jug squad and what I expected to happen, never did. I expected to be intercepted early and often. Over 4 frames we ran 12 missions to various targets. Not one of those missions was intercepted by the Axis. This surprised me as I looked at the scoring it it was quite apparent that we had the ability to inflict tremendous amounts of damage (as much or more than the bombers). We could have easily doubled the heavy runs we made but it became obvious quite quickly that the only resistance was the manned guns so we often switched to escorts after dropping ordinance. We, therefore, added to the overall fighter strength of the Allies.
It appears the Axis focused their resources in stopping bomber groups which seems to be the major point of contention with regards to balance/score. This seems legitimate. I'm not a fan of beating up on the people who design these things. I'm exceedingly happy just to have the sandbox to play in. The overall feeling I get after reading some of the threads seems to be to shoot the messenger. I'm more of a person who likes to say "how can we make it better?"
I don't think we should throw the baby out with the bath water. I'd LOVE to run this one again with a couple tweaks...
1. Increase the down time of the targets. This will add a little more strategy. I understand the idea that the operation area is pretty small and the down times were set to simulate close air support role.
2. Lets get the Vehicle guys involved too! To balance things out, let the bomber pilots fly with the Allies and let's give the tankers to the Axis to simulate the Germans trying to break out of the bulge. Set up a couple spawns where the Germans have to take a town or simply do as much damage as possible. Throw some spotter aircraft and some ground attack and you've got a recipe for some serious potential fun.
+1 for everything here.
-
+3. I had a blast, but the design flaws that others have noted were definitely factors. Low numbers also mean less fun, but of course that's not the fault of the designers or those members of the community who do show up and play.
-
-3 and I have almost never given a negative scoring to a scenario.
Many thanks to Brooke for his continuing efforts putting on these scenarios. However, this one was the worst experience in scenarios I've ever had. I had a truly dismal feeling about in right from the get go after reading the final rules and the Axis commands evaluation of what we were up against. I'm sure I was not alone in that and I was not wrong in the final analysis.
The only thing good about this scenario was being part of a group of players who refused to roll over to the inevitable, and who for four unhappy weekends planned and fought to the best of their ability to reverse the projected outcome.
One telltale observation was the emphasis our commanders placed on the fact that we saved 'X' number of lives till the end of combat. That emphasis shows how focused we became on just not losing aircraft to the lopsided matchup.
Truly disappointing scenario.
-
+5
Guys I flew with were a right laugh :aok
-
Folks I am just posting this as an outsider. Impartial observer. Being outside I've had time to look at the Scenario as a whole. And how it is now designed and fought. I no longer have an account and I doubt I will return in the future.
This is of no consequence, I just tired of the game. Which eventually will happen to each and every one of you. I still have a deep passion for the History of what actually occurred in the skies over Europe during WWII. That will never
change.
So......food for thought. There are some huge problems that I can see now as being troublesome. Again, I have no axe to grind or a dog in the hunt. What I have to say is of little consequence as I am no longer a member of the Community.
Consequently I do not wish or expect a reply. This is just food for thought as I stated above. Think as you wish.
1.) Attendance: Very low numbers. For instance. In DGS I had almost half as many (25) in my P47 squadron as you had participate in this Scenario. The same could be said for all axis and allied squadrons.
At that time we had to increase Squadron size because of those on both sides wanting to participate. Someone mentioned Snap Shot. At this time it appears that is what a Scenario has become. Remember
everyone has access to these Boards. What has been posted can actually deter someone new, or older in age from participating. The childishness and name calling can be a deterrent.
2.) Design: Don't blame the Designers. Blame it instead on the Community. Not what is said or the name calling. The Community as a whole does not participate in numbers as they have in the past. For instance
if memory serves we had more participants in fighters in DGS in four allied squadrons then we've had in the past three or four, maybe more scenarios. Not including Axis fighters and entire Bomb Groups. Now why
do you expect a designer to develop a scenario with a map larger then the one you just fought over? You hold the design to the limitations. The design is limited or handcuffed by the low turnout of players. That is why
fighting occurs chiefly in one grid. Limits. There aren't enough participants to enlarge anything. If the map were larger with the low numbers everyone could go into auto level and take a nap. So the design is effected
by what a mere maybe 80 players can accomplish as opposed to between the 200 and 300 we used to have in participants.
3.) Gaming. As always everything changes. In the past most of us who got into flight sims were more interested in the History. Hey! Things change. Now with the advent of cell phones, iPads etc. we have instantaneous
information. Society has changed a great deal in the past 15 years or so. Instant gratification is now the norm. I am not saying it is good or bad, but patience seems to be becoming rare. Now everyone gets a trophy.
As an impartial observer, to me the great MMOG combat flight sim has become a first person shooter. With stars awarded and advertisements when landing the whole world can read. I don't think there was a HUD in Gabby's
P47 and one in the control tower that read "Gabreski has landed 5 kills in his P47D25 of the 56th fighter Squadron." AH is a game period. The only time it is elevated is in a so called Scenario. There are no more Scenarios.
The game just doesn't have enough people interested to actually participate in a Scenario. This definitely handcuffs the design and causes angst amongst the participants. It is the Community that is at fault not the designers.
Again I have nothing to gain as I have left the Community. What my thoughts are, are of little consequence to the Community. It is the Community that has a great deal to gain. Decide what YOU want. It is the Community that either makes it succeed or fail. Melee or Special Event. It's up to you.
Complains about attendance, doesn't fly in event to help attendance.
-
Come back, Hajo.
-
Spikes,
Hajo was just giving his opinion in his post, as were you in yours.
Got a little story to tell.
I had a comment made to me some time back for voicing an opinion about what I was hearing from some guys after a scenario I could not fly.
Was told by a well known person that since I didn't fly it, shut up about it, go away, and leave it alone.
Funny thing, same person PM's me asking if I was flying just before the next scenario, as he was trying to bump the numbers. Told him I had gone away, per his request and did not fly several. Got another PM before the second one I was planning to miss. Went down pretty much the same way.
Opinions from people who have been long time participants are, to me, as valid as those offered by those who did fly. In this case, Hajo may have more flight time than I do. Wonder if he may have had a similar experience to mine as to a partial reason to leave the game?
-
Spikes,
Hajo was just giving his opinion in his post, as were you in yours.
Got a little story to tell.
I had a comment made to me some time back for voicing an opinion about what I was hearing from some guys after a scenario I could not fly.
Was told by a well known person that since I didn't fly it, shut up about it, go away, and leave it alone.
Funny thing, same person PM's me asking if I was flying just before the next scenario, as he was trying to bump the numbers. Told him I had gone away, per his request and did not fly several. Got another PM before the second one I was planning to miss. Went down pretty much the same way.
Opinions from people who have been long time participants are, to me, as valid as those offered by those who did fly. In this case, Hajo may have more flight time than I do. Wonder if he may have had a similar experience to mine as to a partial reason to leave the game?
Not telling anyone to shut up and leave it alone, just making an observation to the observation he made.
-
+1, no need to go into detail. :old: :joystick: :airplane: :cheers: :cheers: :salute :salute :salute
-
Perhaps I'm misreading things, but the general impression I get is that the Axis feels that bomber interception as implemented in scenarios just doesn't work
And of the two BoG scenarios I've flown, I'm personally in agreement if things are the same. My experience was "crap, bombers got away." *on squad*
Regroup for a second try.
*country*
Bombers made it through.
A8's got torn up, didn't get a good pass at the bombers. Regrouping for a second try.
Same here. Anybody got eyes on the Schweinfurt bomber stream?
Yeah, engaging escorts for Schweinfurt in 8,13,5.
Which segues into the second point. From what I've seen, the most well-received scenarios are the ones where the Axis also has ground targets.
Just food for thought.
-
+4
The setup was ideal for creating action. Even in the pauses after landing or dying to regroup the squadron, there was plenty to do on the manned guns. The ranges and unit assignments gave a real sense to us JaBo's of being protected by our fighter cover. Throwing the F-8s in as fighters in frames 2 & 3 was, in my opinion a bad call on the part of axis command, but we still had fun.
4 frames was a bit too much. Two would have been sufficient, I think. There also seemed to be little sense of progress, at least on the axis attack side. It would have been nice to return to a target to finish off the objects we had missed, but the objects kept re-spawning, so it became a bit "rinse, repeat".
The high point was heading to target NOE and running right into a flight of Typhoons, also on the deck. We created a lot of craters in the Belgian countryside dumping our ords, and then had a blast alternately chasing and running away from the them.
-
The high point was heading to target NOE and running right into a flight of Typhoons, also on the deck. We created a lot of craters in the Belgian countryside dumping our ords, and then had a blast alternately chasing and running away from the them.
You guys caused the demise of 4 Typhoons, including several on their last lives. The result is that one Typhoon only got to target, and after that, we had only one Typhoon that could fly again instead of all 5 being available.
Well done, F-8's! :aok
-
I Had a total blast and got to experience almost all the best elements of this game. I play a lot of games, but not a lot of this one.
+5 across the board, in every metric.
I know the Axis crybabies posting above me will skip over my wall of text I plan to write. Go ahead skip over it. Skip over training too. Skip over teamwork. Skip tactics as well.
Why +5???
Because : Even when the Axis had far more planes and players, including better aces, the Allies TEAMWORK and TACTICS and TRAINING really paid off.
It is true that in most non-strategy games involving about +/- 15% luck (cards , dice, etc) the winner of a two party game says "I WON BECAUSE OF SKILL" and the loser invariably laments "I LOST BECAUSE OF BAD LUCK". But this is a true baTTLE STRATEGY GAME and no "luck" mechanics forced ARTIFICIALLY on it. Its played over 4 sessions, and multiple hours per session.
I'm all for ""close sports games" with nearly-tied scores... but in this case the victors each time were the statistical UNDERDOGS, and we trained , and trained, and took our designated roles, and followed our orders.
FOR THE TEAM EFFORT and TEAM VICTORY
Man a field gun instead of glory hound ? Sure!
Wait 20 minutes before going in to a perfectly timed weak spot ? Sure!
Play cautious and use ground attack planes to attack GROUND TARGETS at all costs ? Sure !
Practice barack attacks offline at various attack angles, speeds, and study field maps, although tedious ? Sure !
+5 is my true honest assessment of this after learning more about how ineptly the Axis was using its ATTACK PLANES, because the scoring reflects many subtle things the Axis would only know if they had audio of our entire team to reflect upon.
ALLIES won because of strategy and tactics.
--Feign radar signatures to tickle fasle intentions.
--Use specific altitudes to fake out squadron identification on other side.
--use convoluted but specifically timed attacks, sometimes down to tiny windows of opportunity
--use the proper planes for the proper roles
--use sacrificial scouts as needed
STRATEGY is why the allies repeatedly won this very fun VERY MATHEMATICALLY BALANCED AND TUNED SCENARIO.
It was not the token "bomber group aspect" added for flavor.
I read everyone's reviews above me and I noticed a fantastic biased trend ... the Axis losers all erroneously seem to think this historic scenario was not fair or balanced enough... HOW??? Really how??? Thats probably a semi-joke. If every player switched sides (countries) HALFWAY through a slightly asymmetrical scenario (2 weeks allied, 2 weeks axis) The Per-Game SCORES WOULD BE NEALRY THE SAME OUTCOME ! I'd bet on it. Maybe one scenario could be done that way by merely having two two-week phases. But the Axis losers would shockingly lose the same on either side and become atrocious Allied Losers. The heavy bomber guys and gals would enjoy two weeks less. But the sobering FACTS about strategy would really hit home. The sting would be greater.
Because anyone could tell that strategy was key to winning. Not ace-level flight skill.
TACTICS TEAMWORK TRAINING ... and the scores really truly reflect what good leadership can achieve !!!
Ground targets were the scenario... take a look at the logs.... notice a trend... Allies played maturely and properly, and were rewarded for their efforts.
Bravo Brooke! Thanks for letting me feel the recreation of a real battle scenario. Thanks for a fun and exciting Scenario.
--Killyjim
-
Take your meds KillyJim. It's just a game :)
-
Lol killy all these tactics masters running around....I'm thinking the next scenario should be pretty good with all these bad cats running around the game.
Sent from my XT1058 using Tapatalk
-
+3
I don't think much more design-wise could have made too much difference for me.
It is a + 3 for me mainly due to:
1) A lack of numbers (not much we can do about this).
2) I'm not too keen on a late war setup in a scenario.
I've never really cared too much score- as long as one side doens't get annhilated by the other I consider the scenario balanced.
-
See Rule #4
-
Folks,
I think it would work best if, when posting a rating, to post your rating and leave it at that.
Other comments along with the rating, especially negative ones, just serve as starting points for folks getting angry and arguing.
Let's forgo that.
-
+1
-
+5 :aok
-
based on my time and experience, I wasn't too impressed. followed directions.
first time in, went rooks, waited 10 minutes. nothing. no one told me what to do. left.
the next time I went in.... flew around a lot. died, got to man a gun. alrighty then.
-
-4
-
+5. first scenario but had a great time!