BACK TO TOKYO! FRAME 2 ADJUSTMENTS

[jededii]

<--Apllauds the designers for the initial attempt at adding some variety and the wisdom to make some needed adjustments after the first run. Any criticism of these decisions would seem a little selfish to me and probably come from the side that won the frame. Yes, I was on the losing side so feel free to disagree with me. 

  This should make it more interesting and hopefully keep the #s up for frames 2&3.  >S< to the powers that be

[AKKaz]

<--Apllauds the designers for the initial attempt at adding some variety and the wisdom to make some needed adjustments after the first run. Any criticism of these decisions would seem a little selfish to me and probably come from the side that won the frame. Yes, I was on the losing side so feel free to disagree with me. 

It would seem obvious to me that the side who has only to worry about defending should have the lower number of pilots. Defenders objective: climb to the stratosphere and wait for bomb laden enemy planes to appear below you knowing that their success depends on reaching and destroying the target. Jabos can't dive on a target from 30k so it's very unlikely they will have that much alt on ingress. This is not a criticism aimed at CMs but at those who would complain about the adjustments being made to make it fun for all. My $.02

No problem here Goose, will run with whatever.  But just to let it be known, the strictly attacker versus strictly defender has been brought up times before, but this is the first time that I can remember that a shift was made because of it.  And the reasons why I remeber them is because of the same reason you remember this one.

[WxMan]

Stoney,

Before you made the changes, did you even look at each sides plan? Was the Allied plan viable? Was the Axis plan  better?

It's becoming a common practice that after a few squeakes and moans, the CM's have a knee jerk reaction and change things.  Each of the last several FSO's had "adjustments" made for one reason or another.

If the Axis gets pawned this frame, will you adjust again?

[Stoney]

Stoney,

Before you made the changes, did you even look at each sides plan? Was the Allied plan viable? Was the Axis plan  better?

It's becoming a common practice that after a few itches and moans, the CM's have a knee jerk reaction and change things.  Each of the last several FSO's had "adjustments" made for one reason or another.

If the Axis gets pawned this frame, will you adjust again?

Yes, I did look at the Allied orders prior to making the changes.

Yes, we have had to make adjustments from time to time.  No, they are not knee jerk reactions.  We've been dealing with new aircraft, new maps, and new ideas and some of those twists have created situations where some previously unforeseen results occurred.

No, there will be no more adjustments for Frame 3.  I believe the adjustments I made were necessary, and therefore, will carry over for the rest of the month, regardless of the results of the frame.

[RATTFINK]

Taking a screenshot of a destroyed target did not seem like a good idea, with the effect it could do to someone’s frame rates, not to mention the person taking the screenshot risks getting killed while trying to take a screenie in combat. But I can see where this would have been helpful during the “Ice and Fog” FSO.

It was worth a shot.

[GooseAW]

No problem here Goose, will run with whatever.  But just to let it be known, the strictly attacker versus strictly defender has been brought up times before, but this is the first time that I can remember that a shift was made because of it.  And the reasons why I remeber them is because of the same reason you remember this one.

Those of us that have been in it for awhile will for the most part will be in it no matter what kaz. We make the most of it no matter what and share our observations after the fact. Perfection is evasive.

The distance to target also effects the outcome in this case as it has in the last few FSOs I've participated in (been busy and missed several). A fairly direct approach, attack, brief fight on the way out with a couple of reverses to try and clear squaddies, then return at full throttle to nearest CV did not leave us time to rearm, attack, and make it back and land before frame's end. This I think needs to be addressed as well for following events maybe. Maybe not.

[AKKaz]

I do agree, this was one of the key arguments to the rule change on the T-60 requirement.  At times this element I think is overlooked when setups are done  (Just my opinion, no factual basis  ).  Making sure that distance to target is attainable in the T-60 time frame is good.  But sometimes I do tend to wonder if other aspects like cv movements, routings for radar evasives, enemy attack routes conflicting with yours, multiple routes for attacks simultaneously from different compass point, etc., are kind of forgotten about in the intial scenerio makeup.  I don't envy some of the guys that are mssion planning.  I've seen a few tied into having to take the direct route just to barely meet the requirement and get slaughtered before they get there.

It's not hard as a defender at times to know the inbound route of the attackers.  A straight line in is the only way they can make the time requirement with the force required to not get the penalties.

Sometimes you know when you take off, that there is going to be no second flight even if you do survive, whether you need to strike again or not. .