S3 Series :: View topic - PP Frame 2 Planning Thread

Ciao!
...we may have a confluence of plane performance attributes working for us. Translation for Wolf: We can fly where our planes are better than theirs.
Gums opines....

I notice in the point summary that I made a incorrect comment during the frame. It appears that the points list was changed after I had looked at it as it now says we get 10 pts for a field closure...

... A continuing question our planning group has is do we get points for BOTH the enumerated structures AND for field closure?

http://www.squadselectseries.com

Axis take the lead in points 97 to 48 mainly because they closed three fields and the allies did not close any.

Fields 138, 116 and 117 are closed for operations in frame 2 and will reopen in frame 3.

RAF bring in some new Hurricane IIBs and the lucky roll is 2 and 127 RCAF gets the new rides for the rest of the series.

MC200s did quite well shooting down 29 while Hurricanes tallied 15. 10 bombers\strike were claimed by each side in the frame.

Good Luck in Frame 2.

Notes;

1. Bomber issues with controlling and operating AI. Some complaints about torque on take-off for the He111.
2. No teleporting or infractions by any player. Well done.

Author:	dewolf [ Tue Nov 03, 2015 9:58 pm ]
Post subject:	PP Frame 2 Planning Thread
CO responsibilities for Frame 2 will be a collaborative effort of the 352nd FG Command Staff, with a designee for the "blame line". We can't do much until we see where the actual front will be, and learn the results of the d6 roll for the Allies. Suggestions from the Heavy drivers and the Strike guys are solicited. Squad COs and Flight Planners are welcome to forward ideas in this thread.

Author:	zinhwk [ Wed Nov 04, 2015 8:46 am ]
Post subject:	Re: PP Frame 2 Planning Thread
Regardless of the front outcome expect 86, 144, 158 to be their forward bases. These could potentially be our number 1 targets if for anything to help push them back even further for frame 3 where we could play more frontline cleanup hitting all those small targets between us and those bases. Tactically I don't see a reason to change much from last frame. The Macchi is effective on small targets in swarms. Our first sortie kinda failed with Macchi bombs on the bigger field ack. But later sorties proved if executed well, it may be a resource. It still remains how the frame shook out and what the allies will have for them in frame 2. That outcome might direct tweaks but overall no real need to fix what ain't broke so far.

Author:	MuskieZZ [ Wed Nov 04, 2015 3:24 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: PP Frame 2 Planning Thread
I notice in the point summary that I made a incorrect comment during the frame. It appears that the points list was changed after I had looked at it as it now says we get 10 pts for a field closure. Maybe we should look hard at hitting small fields and closing them. 83, 140 (good points), 141 and maybe 156 look like low hanging fruit. I think 84 (need to get the bridge also with this) and 85 are doable by the Knights.

Author:	Juice= [ Wed Nov 04, 2015 5:15 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: PP Frame 2 Planning Thread
-- May I suggest buffs at no higher than 10 thousand feet. This will require the enemy to come get you if they want you. It will put them (if they really want to stop you) squarely in our best parameters and allow the fighters best ability to protect. This is a buff decision and and inquiry. If you choose 12.5 K it is fine. submitted Juice

Author:	Hawk [ Wed Nov 04, 2015 6:19 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: PP Frame 2 Planning Thread
I am ok with 10k. I know we'll have to coverage we need so bring it on!

S3 Series http://squadselectseries.com/s3forum/

PP Frame 2 Planning Thread http://squadselectseries.com/s3forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1626	Page 1 of 2

Author:	Gums [ Wed Nov 04, 2015 6:24 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: PP Frame 2 Planning Thread - altitude?
Ciao! So good to hear the lites talking about we buffers flying a bit lower. Good rationale, IMHO, as we found out last series when Lightnings and KI's tried to fight in their own zone and not a lot of altitude-monkey stuff. Basic rule of thumb for the buffs is to get above 8K for the smaller ack. The 88 stuff is deadly up to 20K +, but not much of a player yet in this series. Secondly, most of the LW buffs don't really do well much above 10K, so we may have a confluence of plane performance attributes working for us. Translation for Wolf: We can fly where our planes are better than theirs. Gums opines....

Author:	dewolf [ Wed Nov 04, 2015 7:09 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: PP Frame 2 Planning Thread - altitude?
Gums wrote: Ciao! ...we may have a confluence of plane performance attributes working for us. Translation for Wolf: We can fly where our planes are better than theirs. Gums opines.... Ahh...this mean "We go fly now"? MuskieZZ wrote: I notice in the point summary that I made a incorrect comment during the frame. It appears that the points list was changed after I had looked at it as it now says we get 10 pts for a field closure... Don't beat yourself up over this one, MuskieZZ. Your comments were accurate at the time they were offered. This score alteration should give us a bit of a points boost from your fine leadership in Frame 1, and something we can exploit in the upcoming Frames. A continuing question our planning group has is do we get points for BOTH the enumerated structures AND for field closure? Personally, I'd surely like to see Ch. 112 active so we can tell how we are doing when some targets seem to have difficulty being seen. The "fog of war" in not knowing which targets have been destroyed doesn't add a whole lot to the S3 experience IMHO.

Author:	dewolf [ Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:46 am ]
Post subject:	Re: PP Frame 2 Planning Thread
dewolf wrote: ... A continuing question our planning group has is do we get points for BOTH the enumerated structures AND for field closure? The Radiers, in their first S3 appearance in some time, took out (56) different ground objects, but did not seem to close a field. OTOH our buffs and strikers took down 49 targets, but managed to close three fields in the process. I would anticipate that BDA points will come their way for the "enumerated" targets. Score wise, this would present a "more even" result to Frame 1 than may have been anticipated by some. We will need to see the final Frame 1 score to make an evaluation. It "could be" that closing fields is a strategic move and NOT a points move as our pilots "could" be scoring more points by striking more fields during the time we spend "closing fields".

Author:	dewolf [ Thu Nov 05, 2015 10:19 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: PP Frame 2 Planning Thread
jabo wrote: http://www.squadselectseries.com Axis take the lead in points 97 to 48 mainly because they closed three fields and the allies did not close any. Fields 138, 116 and 117 are closed for operations in frame 2 and will reopen in frame 3. RAF bring in some new Hurricane IIBs and the lucky roll is 2 and 127 RCAF gets the new rides for the rest of the series. MC200s did quite well shooting down 29 while Hurricanes tallied 15. 10 bombers\strike were claimed by each side in the frame. Good Luck in Frame 2. Notes; 1. Bomber issues with controlling and operating AI. Some complaints about torque on take-off for the He111. 2. No teleporting or infractions by any player. Well done. RCAF 127 will get one step (6 airplanes) worth of "reinforcement" Hurri IIB airplanes. PP2 Map The "Moving Front" didn't appear to move.

Author:	jabo [ Fri Nov 06, 2015 5:01 am ]
Post subject:	Re: PP Frame 2 Planning Thread
Italians are doing fine so the Luftwaffe is staying put. The front has not moved but three fields are closed. Difference in points was the fact the Axis got 30 points for closing fields. RAF did not have a fighter that could carry bombs so now the 127 RCAF have the Hurricane IIB that can carry bombs. This would help them clean up fields. I would expect to see the RAF higher next frame, they fought in the altitudes that were best for the MC200s while up high the Merlin should be much superior.

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/