Should Have Been A Milk Run Final Score

[Zoney]

I'm surprised that the axis won that one, looked like the allies had it in the bag. 

Was a good FSO, thank you for taking the time to set it up. 

Did it look like "allies had it in the bag" after frame 1 when they were outscored by twice as much or after frame 2 when it happened again?

I have trouble with math I guess.

[thorsim]

To be specific if I must it was not for the lack of climbing, but the failure of the Axis to head to their targets and defend them. This rule was clearly violated and confirmed by several on the Allied side who complained to me about it.

yes sir i think if you are going to levy penalties then you need to be very specific, especially if you believe the penalty will make a big difference.  

the axis climbed to their areas they were assigned to defend and patrol per my orders, no where in the objectives did it limit me as to the use of my assets or did it specify a force/allied target ratio, a distance limit from specific assigned target, or anything of the kind.  so i honestly took "target" to be "objective" or "area of assignemnt" and ordered the axis accordingly.  

it is important to communicate well, your 6 line limit was very clear.  any order as specific as yoou are interpreting the one you found fault with in frame 1 needs to be written specifically.  

i am curious as to why nobody asked for orders or why the allies sit in judgement on this issue as since they were not to be in the air should have had no idea of what the axis were up to before t+10.

t

[WxMan]

To be specific if I must it was not for the lack of climbing, but the failure of the Axis to head to their targets and defend them. This rule was clearly violated and confirmed by several on the Allied side who complained to me about it.

Whether a defense of a target is directly over it, or two sectors away should be irrelevant. If the opposing forces meet within the time restriction, then all of the preset conditions have been met.

This is another example of penalties being assessed by some obscure intent of a rule and not the rule itself.

[InCrypt]

As the mission planner for the VF-15 I am truly concerned about this. I now wonder if I created conditions for failure when I assigned units along assumed threat vectors during the FSO, instead of keeping them in tight bundles right over the target. I always had our scouts make SNAP to their scout positions, and even some high cap were a sector away from the assigned target, along those threat vectors. After all, I could not see positioning bomber-killers OVER the target, that would mean engaging the bombers AFTER they had dropped. A bit like "closing the barn door after the horse is gone" to my mind. Besides, we wanted the time to wage a running battle.


We didn't have time in the first frame to do a graphic, but Frame 1 and Frame 2 looked almost identical, and this is the unit disposition of the VF15 during Frame 2.



This was our disposition during Frame three. We did have scouts and high-cap moving perpendicular to the assumed threat vectors in sectors 9/19 and 10/19 down to 9/18 and 10/18.



I have to agree with WaxMan, as the penalties for violating the rule were never clearly stated, we're being judged on the rules intent, which I thought I was following. There is too much grey area there.  So I ask, based up on our unit positions, did we violate this ambiguous rule?

Also, I want to clearly state my intent for this post: I am not looking to change points for this frame. I want to know if I was following the rules, or, if by showing initiative, violated them. I also want to make sure that, going forward, if we’re to be docked points that such rules have clear conditions, and point values, assigned – much like the 5/6 line rule did.

[oakranger]

Of all the FSO i have been in (5 years) never have i seen one that had so many problems regarding rules, numbers and a few bad apples. 

[RSLQK186]

Of all the FSO i have been in (5 years) never have i seen one that had so many problems regarding rules, numbers and a few bad apples. 

Search back and you will find yourself in error.

I only bring this up because I logged in to congratulate the CMs for another month with few complaints and given this one was done on the fly, that is a feather in cap. I still think that given how many of the late war Euro setups have gone, this was a supprise. Not faced with the traditional overwhelming odds, the Axis rose to the challenge. Been on the wrong end of The Mighty 8Th a few times. This is basically a good setup.

Given that IRL the Luft knew what was coming and did not have the resources to stop it, I say: Let the Allies have a little less radar to avoid and let the Axis work on interdiction more by design. See how that plays out. Keep the No Fly Zone. Just let the Axis manage their air space as they see fit.

PS: I also recall someone stating that it was a handcap being Axis in general. I remember a time when Axis= glorious death. He must have not been around 6 years ago. HTC has done a few favors with plane set, but I hold the CM staff responsible for most of the level playing field. Your concerns did not go unanswered.

[daddog]

Thanks RSL.

[StokesAk]

Did it look like "allies had it in the bag" after frame 1 when they were outscored by twice as much or after frame 2 when it happened again?

I have trouble with math I guess.

This statement it from a pilots view, I did not look at the scores. Our group got killed withing 5 minutes of enagement from high tempests and 51s that out preformed out plane at all altitudes.

I just though that the case would be similar with a few other of the Axis squads.

[jdbecks]

This statement it from a pilots view, I did not look at the scores. Our group got killed withing 5 minutes of enagement from high tempests and 51s that out preformed out plane at all altitudes.

I just though that the case would be similar with a few other of the Axis squads.

why we need the a/s model 109s

[thorsim]

i really have no idea why the allies took it on the chin so hard this series ...

this is another reason why a side secure bbs would be helpful we could all
then review each others problems planning and execution per orders at the end of the series.

how does everyone feel about posting the orders and objectives and sorting this out.

beat downs like this if they persist are not very good for events.
 

[TUK]

I think it would be too hard to keep  information secure  with so many fso pilots..  Perhaps a Co forum would work. Not a bad ideah to throw around the table thorism..

[AKKuya]

I think it would be too hard to keep  information secure  with so many fso pilots..  Perhaps a Co forum would work. Not a bad ideah to throw around the table thorism..

Do you mean an Allied side CO forum and an Axis side CO forum for each individual FSO event?  That would be nice and probably easy for the CM tean to set-up. 

How many will actually take the 5 minutes per day to log on and read what's posted?  And, how many of the silent majority will actually post to add more to the varied opinions?

I add my +1 to the notion of a CO forum for each side per FSO.

[heinrich]

howdy fellas i am with THorsim on this one. i am in Jg-27 AFRIKA and dang proud of it..its kinda of pathetic for grown men to squeak about a game that every single one of us pays for..its not just one person doing this that or the other, but a group of folks all looking to have fun..But the side CO forums would be nice to get facts straight and what not..Me thinks i would take some of the complaining away mostly from what i see its all allied doing complaining Hmmm makes you wonder huh.. but get them forums up and explain in detail what objectives are and what rules of engagement are and what not..
<S> all

Heinrich

[fuzeman]

I could be mistaken but adding forums and such requires the magical powers of Skuzzy, not the CM Team.

[TUK]

Cm's had side forums in the last scenario.. Maybe Brooke could chime in..