I had an issue with the screen on this when editing and it was hard to read it. Sorry about that. :)
...ok so that looks to be the final side split. :salute
Title: Re: Ok side assignments one more time (looky here).
Post by: Devil 505 on April 29, 2019, 03:28:20 PM
I apologize if this comes across as hostile, but this is not any better than before. It's actually worse.
Yes, you fixed my original problem and moved KN rightfully to the Axis - thank you for this.
However, you made the exact same mistake. This time you moved the 346th to the Allies despite the fact that they also requested Axis this month - as evidenced by their aircraft preferences. There were only 3 squads who entered axis planes as preference, therefore proving that they updated for May: 364th, Kommando Nowotny, and Pigs on the Wing. These squads should get priority seating on the Axis. Move the guys genually do not have a preference or who don't care enough to update their info.
Also, the side numbers are imbalanced now, whereas they were fine the first time. And you omitted a Frame 2 CiC for the Axis.
Title: Re: Ok side assignments one more time (looky here).
Post by: Squire on April 29, 2019, 03:46:07 PM
Gimme a few to finish it off Devil...i'm working on it while you are replying...I should have waited before I posted.
...No less than 11 squads requested Axis out of 18. So I'm doing what I can. :salute
Title: Re: Ok side assignments one more time (looky here).
Post by: Devil 505 on April 29, 2019, 03:51:41 PM
Roger that, Squire. :salute
Title: Re: Ok side assignments one more time (looky here).
Post by: Squire on April 29, 2019, 04:01:01 PM
No problem...that why we have a BBS...it's not the first time we almost went to print and then somebody says "wait a minute that's just a big pile of poo!" and I say "oh...hang on..." :D
Title: Re: Ok side assignments one more time (looky here).
Post by: j500ss on April 29, 2019, 08:21:38 PM
I just don't get it!
Who runs FSO?
"Moved rightfully to Axis"?
It's been pretty obvious every time you balk about an issue you get what you want Devil. However this time, I am sorry to say it comes across and total arrogance, that was my first thought this morning when I read the original side assignments post. Yea, I laughed my assets off, but at the same time I knew you would get your way.
Sadly FSO is about to the point where picking a ride and side preference is about useless. Squire states no less than 11 of 18 squads REQUESTED AXIS. What does that tell you? You have to know why that is..... I am pretty sure most do, Perd does apparently.
Now how about the 412th, they got switched around after specifically requesting AXIS initially, and your reply to Nef's post in the other thread made ZERO sense, it came across as you chastising him and about updating rides and side pref, when according to Nef, that was exactly what he did to begin with.
With what seems to be more and more DEDICATED squads involved in FSO, or maybe it's less non dedicated squads, you have to realize that it leaves squads with little ability to get their preference anymore. They could beg for it, but that doesn't mean they are going to get it. So maybe in a way, you just showed us all how to overcome that issue.... DEMAND!!
The upcoming setups for May, June, and July have P-40 and B-25 written all over them. August will most likely be Battle of Britian, so Hurri 1's and Spit 1's. Hmmm
So as I see it, G3-MF will have at least 7 straight months Allied. Last I checked we were NOT a "dedicated" squad. Used to be in FSO there was a time you were rotated at least once every 3-4 months like it or not. Just another feature of FSO that has been lost.
My logic anymore concerning sides and rides is simple. Plan on always being allied, even though I HATE red star planes, that is just a reality.
That said, when I see a setup that WOWS me, and I want a switch..... We should get it, as should anyone else who rolls with the flow to do their part of being an team player so all involved get to enjoy their Friday nights even when they know they are the underdog.
:salute
JDOG G3-MF
Title: Re: Ok side assignments one more time (looky here).
Post by: Arlo on April 29, 2019, 08:40:07 PM
Gorram Axis whiners. I'll take your Allied ride. I'll be your huckleberry. It's only a game, not a sport with a cash prize. :D
Title: Re: Ok side assignments one more time (looky here).
Post by: Squire on April 29, 2019, 08:49:22 PM
Sometimes its a case as well of not knowing how much a squad wants a side. Often they don't care really strongly but this time they do. I have looked again at the past assignments and made another adjustment. It's the last one. Objectives coming out.
...It is a fair complaint if you have been on one side for a long time and you request Allied or Axis that that should be a strong consideration. Again...it helps to air it out if you have a gripe. Sometimes the answer is yes, sometimes no. :salute
Title: Re: Ok side assignments one more time (looky here).
Post by: j500ss on April 29, 2019, 08:59:02 PM
Squire,
There was zero need to move us. I was fine with our assignment, if it came across differently that is my bad and I am sorry. Put whoever you moved back to Axis. Had I wanted Axis, I would have put in for it.
Maybe next month.
Hows the post count doing Arlo? :rolleyes:
:salute
Title: Re: Ok side assignments one more time (looky here).
Post by: Arlo on April 29, 2019, 09:06:11 PM
I gave up counting 18k back. Oh, who am I kidding? Counting posts is rather stupid. How's yours? :aok
Go Allies! Beat the Axis! For history's sake. :D
Title: Re: Ok side assignments one more time (looky here).
Post by: Squire on April 29, 2019, 09:09:08 PM
No in all fairness both you and the 412th should be Axis. The setup will be fine.
I will say that yes, we need to remember that a side request is a request...we do what we need to get it done and sometimes that's taking a side you don't want. Dedicated Axis squads have a few time in the past been moved Allied.
I glitched the first one re the weird template I had...then I underestimated some genuine requests and also some squads that had been one side for a long time that requested a move I didn't see it. So...mainly just me muddling through it...I always delay the objective to see if any big problems arise...its ok to have a purse fight once in awhile...its going to happen at some point. :salute
Title: Re: Ok side assignments one more time (looky here).
Post by: Arlo on April 29, 2019, 09:24:28 PM
Seriously, though, the FSO team works tirelessly to make this work. I may have preferences (yes, I'm an old fashioned Allied worshiper) but I actually appreciate dedicated axis flyers. It makes it possible for there to be dedicated Allied flyers (in spite of the fact that VF-17 seems to want to be JG 17 when German rides come into play - what's up with that?). It's the whining and lack of appreciation I don't care for, especially when it begins to snowball into a dog-pile (I love to mix metaphors).
Give the Axis requesters what they want, I say. Bless them for doing it. But .... suck it up, Heidi. :salute :cheers:
Title: Re: Ok side assignments one more time (looky here).
Post by: Devil 505 on April 29, 2019, 10:57:25 PM
J500ss and Arlo, you both fail to see the reasoning behind my posts today.
There is a long standing problem I have voiced on several occasions over the handling of side splits and the laissez-faire attitude that some C.O. manage their squads. The concerns I have voiced have gone unanswered, (Funny that you think I always get what I wish. It is not so.) and this morning those problems resulted appearing to be the only squad placed against it's request. So yeah, I was mad, to say the least. Sill mad to a degree because this could have been avoided.
That is what I referred to in my reply to Nef. That was not a snide comment mocking the fact that he too had his squad placed against his wishes. I was simply referring to a problem I raised when he ran the CM team and it could have been addressed anytime between then and now. And we both got shafted in the first instance of the side splits because of it. If he thought I was being snarky at his or the 412th's expense, then I apologize, as that was not my intent.
Squire says there were 11 squads who requested Axis, but how are we to know? I have mentioned before that I would like to see in the table what side was actually requested by the squads when the tables are posted. Why is that important to me? So that we know that the side spits are handled fairly and so that we know which squads are run by guys who care enough to review their commitment levels and make their preferences. If all the squads had indeed been updated and I knew that their status was up to date, then there would not have been a peep from me today.
To reiterate what I mentioned earlier today, I could only tell that 3 squads who requested Axis and actually updated for May - KN, 364th, and the Pigs. I also knew for a fact that 2 squads placed on the Axis did not update for May because their ride preferences had planes from past months. Both of those squads are consider themselves "Dedicated Axis" and their commitment level is the same as KN's. So again, how can anyone justify placing KN on the Allies over these other 2 squads? My C.O. cared enough to update our preferences and they did not. So I view the initial placement of KN on the Allies as unjust and my request to be moved to the Axis as indeed "rightful". If you think I'm being arrogant - well, that just your opinion, man.
Title: Re: Ok side assignments one more time (looky here).
Post by: Arlo on April 29, 2019, 11:20:16 PM
It's been pretty obvious every time you balk about an issue you get what you want Devil. However this time, I am sorry to say it comes across and total arrogance, that was my first thought this morning when I read the original side assignments post. Yea, I laughed my assets off, but at the same time I knew you would get your way.
Sadly FSO is about to the point where picking a ride and side preference is about useless. Squire states no less than 11 of 18 squads REQUESTED AXIS. What does that tell you? You have to know why that is..... I am pretty sure most do, Perd does apparently.
Now how about the 412th, they got switched around after specifically requesting AXIS initially, and your reply to Nef's post in the other thread made ZERO sense, it came across as you chastising him and about updating rides and side pref, when according to Nef, that was exactly what he did to begin with.
With what seems to be more and more DEDICATED squads involved in FSO, or maybe it's less non dedicated squads, you have to realize that it leaves squads with little ability to get their preference anymore. They could beg for it, but that doesn't mean they are going to get it. So maybe in a way, you just showed us all how to overcome that issue.... DEMAND!!
The upcoming setups for May, June, and July have P-40 and B-25 written all over them. August will most likely be Battle of Britian, so Hurri 1's and Spit 1's. Hmmm
So as I see it, G3-MF will have at least 7 straight months Allied. Last I checked we were NOT a "dedicated" squad. Used to be in FSO there was a time you were rotated at least once every 3-4 months like it or not. Just another feature of FSO that has been lost.
My logic anymore concerning sides and rides is simple. Plan on always being allied, even though I HATE red star planes, that is just a reality.
That said, when I see a setup that WOWS me, and I want a switch..... We should get it, as should anyone else who rolls with the flow to do their part of being an team player so all involved get to enjoy their Friday nights even when they know they are the underdog.
:salute
JDOG G3-MF
I guess that would be me at the moment.
I don't think side preference is useless at all, every Admin CM uses it to the best of their ability, otherwise it would be a free-for-all.
Each Admin has their own way of doing splits. Personally, I look at the theater and place squads who are dedicated to rides in that theater. So if it's Pacific, VF-17 and G3-MF are automatically getting USN since we don't get the chance to run many events with Blue Planes. If it is Eastern Front, 9GIAP gets VVS, without question. Then, I look at any historical squads. Are there P-47s in the setup? 56th FG goes on the side with the Jugs. This is not to say I am favoring those squads, but I would find it unfair to put a squad who's historical ride is in the event, on the other side even though I could help it.
Next, I move onto squads who have updated for the month (if they haven't already been taken care of). We do appreciate the squads who no-preference as it helps round everything out without having to upset people.
Fortunately, throughout the years we've had a number of dedicated Axis squads as more often than not the preferences favor the Allies, therefore everyone getting their preferred side has never been a huge problem, but it does become one from time to time. It's all fun and games until it's Late War Pacific time and everyone wants to fly Allied. :)
I think out of all the events I've Admin'd (which is not a lot mind you), only once or twice did I have to move a squad to a side they didn't want.
There are very few instances where more squads prefer to be Axis than Allied. This can be due to the setups, or just a squad looking for a change of scenery. It's a rarity, but you'll see KN request Allied from time to time.
Ultimately, Warloc is right. When it comes down to it, they are just preferences.
Title: Re: Ok side assignments one more time (looky here).
Post by: DubiousKB on April 30, 2019, 10:30:23 AM
I relinquish my desire to have a specific ride in favor of someone actually spending time to create/manage FSO's.
Yes I love flying the P47, but I've also lit up the skies in Japanese fireworks err I mean planes...
It's funny to me to see the same people hold their breath and clank pots N pans together until they get there way... Especially when participation numbers are falling to an all time low.
So which is better, getting your favorite shiny aircraft and no enemy targets? Or getting stuck with something you don't like and having to fight like hell?
I dunno, the discussion seems a little silly; but not without some valid points on updating ride preferences.
Title: Re: Ok side assignments one more time (looky here).
Post by: waystin2 on April 30, 2019, 10:45:00 AM
I wonder why we worry so much about the history so much as the action and the scrap. Frankly the Pigs are here for the fight, not so much for the history (Axis vs. Allies). Don't get me wrong, we are all buffs to some degree or another, but hell I could care less if both sides had the same exact airplanes and we were told that we were targeting each other mushroom factories in some alternate reality. The Pigs would come out swinging just as hard. Just my .02 cents
Title: Re: Ok side assignments one more time (looky here).
Post by: Arlo on April 30, 2019, 10:52:17 AM
I wonder why we worry so much about the history so much as the action and the scrap. Frankly the Pigs are here for the fight, not so much for the history (Axis vs. Allies). Don't get me wrong, we are all buffs to some degree or another, but hell I could care less if both sides had the same exact airplanes and we were told that we were targeting each other mushroom factories in some alternate reality. The Pigs would come out swinging just as hard. Just my .02 cents
Blasphemer. :old:
Title: Re: Ok side assignments one more time (looky here).
Post by: Drano on April 30, 2019, 11:24:43 AM
I wonder why we worry so much about the history so much as the action and the scrap. Frankly the Pigs are here for the fight, not so much for the history (Axis vs. Allies). Don't get me wrong, we are all buffs to some degree or another, but hell I could care less if both sides had the same exact airplanes and we were told that we were targeting each other mushroom factories in some alternate reality. The Pigs would come out swinging just as hard. Just my .02 cents
Right? And as long as I don't run out of beer, what I'm flying won't bother me much. Priorities gentlemen!
I'll go back to dusributing P-38 parts afterward anyway. Generally until the beer runs out.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Ok side assignments one more time (looky here).
Post by: Squire on April 30, 2019, 02:27:23 PM
Quote
Blasphemer
...and those that follow...to attack Pearl Harbor with the Luftwaffe shall be discarded...
-FSO rules addendum.
Title: Re: Ok side assignments one more time (looky here).
Post by: waystin2 on April 30, 2019, 02:35:33 PM
I wonder why we worry so much about the history so much as the action and the scrap. Frankly the Pigs are here for the fight, not so much for the history (Axis vs. Allies). Don't get me wrong, we are all buffs to some degree or another, but hell I could care less if both sides had the same exact airplanes and we were told that we were targeting each other mushroom factories in some alternate reality. The Pigs would come out swinging just as hard. Just my .02 cents
I like where your head is at Waystin, couldn't agree more on this point. Years ago I asked Daddog why FSO didn't run more "what if's" for lack of better terminology.
He didn't really have an answer, other than immersion. He told me to put one together, and he would look and consider it. Then he left the game. So obviously it died.
I know there is a lot that has gone on behind the scenes in FSO the couple years, as well as in the CM world. Not an easy task, but I know all of us @ G3 fully appreciate the effort.
Side pref are great, and I full well know not guaranteed. I didn't update, because I had a sneaking suspicion a lot were going to want Axis, so I just let it be. Allied was fine, but we will do whatever asked as we always have.
Title: Re: Ok side assignments one more time (looky here).
Post by: perdue3 on April 30, 2019, 07:41:08 PM
I think the preferences discussion is very good and I hope that many, especially CO's, can take something away from this discussion. The main point here is that preferences and requests are just that, preferences and requests. They, unfortunately, do not mean that you will get that side or those aircraft. It is more difficult than many might think to balance the sides AND give squads what they want. Most of the time, someone will not get what they requested. Nineteen times out of twenty, that will be a squad that has to fly Axis. This is the first time in recent memory where some did not get Axis as requested.
Spikes summed it well for me. I give squads their dedicated side first, then move on to the other squads. Maybe this is not the best way of doing it? I know that 9GIAP wants VVS and I know that 56th FG wants jugs, so they will get those sides. In a situation like this one, is it fair to give all three dedicated Luftwaffe squads (JG 11, JG 54, Kommando Nowotny) Axis? In my opinion, it absolutely is. They are the first three names on the Axis board. Unless one of those request Allied, they should be given Luftwaffe by default; just as G3-MF and VF-17 are given USN and the US FG's (364th and 56th) are given US aircraft. These are dedicated squads. The situation changes when we have non-dedicated squads that have not received the side they requested multiple times in a row.
There really should be no reason why any squadron is not given the side they want more than twice in a row. Twice in a row is understandable because of numbers, campaign theater, etc. But, if a squad has been shafted, as it were, twice in a row they should get what they want the third time. The Admin's have the ability to see what was requested and that should not happen.
The what-if that was mentioned is an entirely different matter. I think, as a designer, it comes down to designer tastes. I like a very complex and accurate setup whereas others like it to be loose. I have some very strong opinions about what-if's in AH events that are not necessarily pertinent to this conversation. I will say that there are varying degrees of what-if. That may sound ridiculous, but allow me to explain. The committee designed Conquest at Casablanca was a what-if in many ways. For those of you that do not remember, this setup pitted the Vichy French against the Americans at Casablanca during Operation Torch. P-40F's (L) lifted from the USS Ranger and F4F's fought alongside them. Rabat was used as an airfield, as it was in the operation and Casablanca's largest Axis airfield was bombed and strafed by SBD's. Likewise, the port of Casablanca was bombed by SBD's. All of this actually happened. What makes it a what-if was the fact that the Vichy French had as many numbers as the Americans. In reality, there were about 20 serviceable aircraft that we have in AH or have a decent sub for. Also, the Vichy French bombers never attacked the CV group or the USS Massachusetts. So, the designers had to fictionalize some things to make the event an event.
This is going to be the case with many FSO's. Just last month, Frame 2 was complete and utter fiction. Frames 1 and 3 were simulated sorties of May 7 and 8, respectively. But, we have 3 frames in FSO, so I made some stuff up for objectives in Frame 2. But, this is a necessary evil and must be considered as very small shying from accuracy. Casablanca is a stretched event, whereas Coral Sea was pretty much spot on save one fictional frame. My point is, I have no problem with stretching actual battles and campaigns to make a fun and interesting event, à la Casablanca, but complete fiction (for three frames) I cannot condone. But, this is opinion and preference. It simply means that I will probably never design a USAF vs. RAF event. However, I would be open to Battle of France with subs for the French's best aircraft.
Title: Re: Ok side assignments one more time (looky here).
Post by: Arlo on April 30, 2019, 07:59:56 PM
Keep up the good work FSO staff. :cheers:
Title: Re: Ok side assignments one more time (looky here).
Post by: waystin2 on May 01, 2019, 07:28:32 AM
Spikes summed it well for me. I give squads their dedicated side first, then move on to the other squads. Maybe this is not the best way of doing it? I know that 9GIAP wants VVS and I know that 56th FG wants jugs, so they will get those sides. In a situation like this one, is it fair to give all three dedicated Luftwaffe squads (JG 11, JG 54, Kommando Nowotny) Axis? In my opinion, it absolutely is. They are the first three names on the Axis board. Unless one of those request Allied, they should be given Luftwaffe by default; just as G3-MF and VF-17 are given USN and the US FG's (364th and 56th) are given US aircraft. These are dedicated squads. The situation changes when we have non-dedicated squads that have not received the side they requested multiple times in a row.
I am not sure I agree with this method of side sorting. A side choice awarded because of a poorly chosen squad name or not specifying a favorite plane? Now I agree with you on the dedication to keeping on obligations like updates, CIC duties, player numbers etc. as a barometer. But not a squad name as a way of making this decision. The Pigs would end up at the bottom of the heap every time right? We basically will fly and die in anything but prefer fighters. Besides we are not dedicated to either side as you can see we have flown both sides for years. The "dedicated" squads need to rotate out of their comfort zones sometimes. I thought this had happened in this setup at first but it was quickly and loudly corrected here in the forums.
Title: Re: Ok side assignments one more time (looky here).
Post by: perdue3 on May 01, 2019, 09:25:23 AM
I am not sure I agree with this method of side sorting. A side choice awarded because of a poorly chosen squad name or not specifying a favorite plane? Now I agree with you on the dedication to keeping on obligations like updates, CIC duties, player numbers etc. as a barometer. But not a squad name as a way of making this decision. The Pigs would end up at the bottom of the heap every time right? We basically will fly and die in anything but prefer fighters. Besides we are not dedicated to either side as you can see we have flown both sides for years. The "dedicated" squads need to rotate out of their comfort zones sometimes. I thought this had happened in this setup at first but it was quickly and loudly corrected here in the forums.
Well, the difference in non-dedicated squads and dedicated squads is that one is dedicated to a specific aircraft or theater and the other is not. So, if they model their squad after a certain squad in real life, why shouldn't they be able to represent that squad or one like it in events? You said yourself that you would fly and die in anything, well some squads prefer to fly and die in specific planes (FW 190's, La-7's, P-47's, etc.). Like I said, it may not be the best way to do it. Luckily, most squadrons are not dedicated squads. We have 18 squads and only 8 of them are attached to a specific theater/aircraft. Even then, they are spread out (3 Luftwaffe, 2 US Navy, 2 USAAF, 1 VVS), so never should there be a time where these squads are not given their dedicated side because of other squadron requests.
I see your point and it is certainly valid. But, I find it unfair to disallow Luftwaffe squadrons the Luftwaffe because there are only three of them. The same applies to the Navy, US, and VVS squads. But, if the community would like to see Luftwaffe squads rotated out of the Luftwaffe every now and then, we can entertain that I suppose.
Title: Re: Ok side assignments one more time (looky here).
Post by: waystin2 on May 01, 2019, 11:13:52 AM
Well, the difference in non-dedicated squads and dedicated squads is that one is dedicated to a specific aircraft or theater and the other is not. So, if they model their squad after a certain squad in real life, why shouldn't they be able to represent that squad or one like it in events? You said yourself that you would fly and die in anything, well some squads prefer to fly and die in specific planes (FW 190's, La-7's, P-47's, etc.). Like I said, it may not be the best way to do it. Luckily, most squadrons are not dedicated squads. We have 18 squads and only 8 of them are attached to a specific theater/aircraft. Even then, they are spread out (3 Luftwaffe, 2 US Navy, 2 USAAF, 1 VVS), so never should there be a time where these squads are not given their dedicated side because of other squadron requests.
I see your point and it is certainly valid. But, I find it unfair to disallow Luftwaffe squadrons the Luftwaffe because there are only three of them. The same applies to the Navy, US, and VVS squads. But, if the community would like to see Luftwaffe squads rotated out of the Luftwaffe every now and then, we can entertain that I suppose.
Never rotate someone just for the sake of doing it. Only be open to it. I think when there is a majority of squadrons wanting to fly one side or the other then there needs to be random choices made with everyone's name in the hat. Make sense? Do not want to start up anything more than that. Focusing up on this Friday.
See you guys up there,
Way
:salute
Title: Re: Ok side assignments one more time (looky here).
Post by: perdue3 on May 01, 2019, 11:48:05 AM
Never rotate someone just for the sake of doing it. Only be open to it. I think when there is a majority of squadrons wanting to fly one side or the other then there needs to be random choices made with everyone's name in the hat. Make sense? Do not want to start up anything more than that. Focusing up on this Friday.
See you guys up there,
Way
:salute
It does make sense and you have good points. However, the random drawing should come after dedicated squads are placed, in my opinion. Then, any squads who did not get their requested side the previous month, should be given their requested side this particular month. After that, it can become random. Although there is the issue of side balancing, so only so much randomness can occur.
I will also add a counterpoint to one of Devil's points. Updating the plane preference is often not done until a squad is assigned a side. While it makes sense to announce your plane preferences along with your side preferences, it is not always done in this manner. Should it? It would be helpful, but the Admins can see who changed their preferences and who did not. So, it is somewhat of a moot point. Then there are squads that have no preferences at all such as 9GIAP. They are almost always No Preference and do not prefer an aircraft. Squads such as this do not need to update because they have no preference. It would be unfair to "punish" these squads because they did not update.
It should be known that Admins try as hard as they can to get squads where they want to be. Sometimes it does not work out for a squad or two. The only thing we can do is ensure that these squads are given what they want next month.
:salute
Title: Re: Ok side assignments one more time (looky here).
Post by: puller on May 01, 2019, 11:53:07 AM
Please don't put us Allied unless I specifically request it...I have been very vocal about all this and do my part for changing up...We are back Axis again in FSO and intend on staying here until BoB 2020....I was late this month with update but did get it Sunday I believe. sorry for any inconvenience from that....
Title: Re: Ok side assignments one more time (looky here).
Post by: waystin2 on May 01, 2019, 11:57:34 AM
It does make sense and you have good points. However, the random drawing should come after dedicated squads are placed, in my opinion. Then, any squads who did not get their requested side the previous month, should be given their requested side this particular month. After that, it can become random. Although there is the issue of side balancing, so only so much randomness can occur.
I will also add a counterpoint to one of Devil's points. Updating the plane preference is often not done until a squad is assigned a side. While it makes sense to announce your plane preferences along with your side preferences, it is not always done in this manner. Should it? It would be helpful, but the Admins can see who changed their preferences and who did not. So, it is somewhat of a moot point. Then there are squads that have no preferences at all such as 9GIAP. They are almost always No Preference and do not prefer an aircraft. Squads such as this do not need to update because they have no preference. It would be unfair to "punish" these squads because they did not update.
It should be known that Admins try as hard as they can to get squads where they want to be. Sometimes it does not work out for a squad or two. The only thing we can do is ensure that these squads are given what they want next month.
:salute
I am going to say it. I don't know how to phrase it any differently so don't take this wrong it is actually a compliment...You have become a bit more able to discuss stuff with folks without going off the chain since you have become an admin where in the past you and I would have just locked horns completely. It's refreshing Perd. :aok
Title: Re: Ok side assignments one more time (looky here).
Post by: perdue3 on May 01, 2019, 01:01:10 PM
I am going to say it. I don't know how to phrase it any differently so don't take this wrong it is actually a compliment...You have become a bit more able to discuss stuff with folks without going off the chain since you have become an admin where in the past you and I would have just locked horns completely. It's refreshing Perd. :aok
Cheers :cheers:
Title: Re: Ok side assignments one more time (looky here).
Post by: Squire on May 02, 2019, 12:41:03 AM
Quote
Please don't put us Allied unless I specifically request it
...I cannot promise that puller but I get that you want Axis. I recall it came up before. :salute
Title: Re: Ok side assignments one more time (looky here).
Post by: puller on May 02, 2019, 07:58:28 AM
...I cannot promise that puller but I get that you want Axis. I recall it came up before. :salute
:salute :rock :rock :joystick: :airplane:
Title: Re: Ok side assignments one more time (looky here).
Post by: puller on May 02, 2019, 12:20:50 PM
I take back my salute...I got Allied orders (HUGE MIDDLE FINGER) Words cannot express my rage....I guess I should have reopened the freaking side assignments...
So pissed
Title: Re: Ok side assignments one more time (looky here).
Post by: Arlo on May 02, 2019, 02:07:22 PM
I take back my salute...I got Allied orders (HUGE MIDDLE FINGER) Words cannot express my rage....I guess I should have reopened the freaking side assignments...
So pissed
Lighten up, okie.
Title: Re: Ok side assignments one more time (looky here).
Post by: puller on May 02, 2019, 04:22:40 PM
And your the CO of what squad again???...Oh yeah...Ur not...your a pilot...go on about spamming in every post and showing your true Texas azz...
I've been the C.O. I've not been (longer than have). You don't know what 'spamming' means but you sure know about being an arse. :D
Title: Re: Ok side assignments one more time (looky here).
Post by: SlipKnt on May 03, 2019, 07:58:59 PM
I like bologna, sharp cheddar cheese, on a cracker with horse radish spread...
(oopsie, wrong thread)
:bolt:
See you cartoon killers in the cartoon skies in a bit!
:rock
Title: Re: Ok side assignments one more time (looky here).
Post by: Squire on May 04, 2019, 12:08:22 AM
I thought you meant in the future Puller...I didn't mean for the mixup. Anyways I had to send both you and JG54 Allied this time. 11 of 18 requested Axis. That's not going to work. I can't possibly please all of you...read the posts. I don't sit here and try to ruin peoples FSO time.
Title: Re: Ok side assignments one more time (looky here).
Post by: Joker312 on May 04, 2019, 08:21:24 AM
Reading these posts it becomes apparent that we have a few here that think they have a right to be given their way ALL the time.
Sounds like a couple of children crying to mommy about nothing.
As Squire said, its a request not a guarantee.
Title: Re: Ok side assignments one more time (looky here).
Post by: flippz on May 07, 2019, 09:20:49 AM
It’s not crying to mommy about what cartoon plane we get to fly. It’s being tired of swapping g to even sides to only be given crappy rides. Or when others have bigger numbers and never volunteer to swap or others that are dedicated side flyers that instantly given certain planes. Stop with the crying comments until you go back three years and follow what puller had done to even things up and rides he’s taken for the sake of evening things. Go back three years and look at our squad numbers and compare them to now. They didn’t get that way because every one was having a ball.
Title: Re: Ok side assignments one more time (looky here).
Post by: Squire on May 07, 2019, 05:07:38 PM
I have reviewed Anti-Horde for the last 12 months. You guys have been Axis the last 4 setups (that's the only info I have on the side prefs is the last 4)...and Allied 8 setups (i'm assuming that's mainly what was asked for)...and have had fighters in all 12 setups in frame 1 at least that I saw; P-51s, P-47s, LA-5, 109G-2s, 109G-14s, A6M2s, Yak-7, P-40C ect.
...I see absolutely nothing that would give anybody pause as to have you have been treated in any adverse way. I knew that currently your prefs have been Axis and I remembered that Puller messaged me about that previously. I would have left Anti-Horde Axis if G3-MF and 412th hadn't asked for Axis and been Allied recently in other setups.
...I do not have control over strike assignments other than to say that they are supposed to be rotated. So if you got 2 in a row sometime that happens but you should always ask the CiC if they can adjust it.
...If it comes to pass that down the road you guys need a boon from me re assignments. You have it. I offer that in the good spirit its intended.
...In the case of initially botching the sides I am to blame for that and for the confusion that followed...but I have to say that I am disappointed in some of the comments re assignments, CiCs, ect from players who have been here for years.
In any case :salute to all and thats it for me on this thread. ...To quote Daddog "The #1 Rule of FSO is to have fun".