-Hawkeye-

Looks like you had an exciting session. Good for you! Your first group passed right over us (a large group of Rolands). Later, you went past us again, as we were engaging your friends near Ankjzobov, in order to secure the ship target! All of us stuck to our main missions and had a lot of fun. Salute, Hardy!

Would like to add my congratulations, however late, to the Blue Team! The missions I remember the most, the Red side was using every last second of the clock to land and achieve missions that would surely help us achieve superiority. At times we did better than any session before, felt great about that, and rightly so! We happily saw that we had achieved 8 or 9 missions in one session! Only to see that the Blue Team had achieved 10 Congrats again, you fellers! Great work!

That ought'a be an RoF trailer, for the general public!! GREAT work 'lead !! Who knew ??

Yes "Congrats" Entente team in FiF XXI, on your come-back win. You powered through adverse server conditions FTW. Great eyes on defense too; very little got past you. S!

With one quick glance at your calculations, it's instantly obvious that you've porked the Sopwith Triplane.

R, thanks for the info! That was one fine event. Not enough credit was given to you guys. The way that plane types were allocated, the teams scheduling, and the scoring system were all very well thought out. It was very much a relief from the cut-throat atmospheres of RBWL, WF, and the rest. Salute!

Not exactly what I had in mind, but that means nothing. How do you envision that working in an actual event.....running each session once as offenders, and then again as defenders, and then moving on to the next session? That certainly would change things very radically from what we have now. Also I think the offensive side has some built in advantages in terms of target destructability, causing some lopsided numbers needed in terms of offense vs. defense. Probably a lot of thought needs to go into this. Small, incremental changes couldn't hurt. The plane set you've chosen above does lend itself to a more even balance between offense and defense. Later ones could be more of a problem

That could be just as cool, and however it's done, will make a big difference, regardless. Basically, we all love WWI aircraft, don't we? Personally, I love 'em all, but am not going to try to speak for anybody else in that regard. It's a great challenge to be good on both sides and I think would add a lot of interest. That said, I sure would hope that in any blue side / red side scenario, the squadrons or people that make up each side, would vary instead of being the same all the time. For those of you that have never tried this, it's absolutely amazing how much fun it is to fly in cooperation with others that you've traditionally always been against. How eye-opening it is to fly along side your nemesis as a wingman! Somebody whome you've villainized in your own mind often ends up becoming a great friend, and future opposition relations take on a whole new understanding. There was one single event in RB3D that used this concept, and for me personally it was a real education. People and squadrons that had always been in opposition, groups that had developed an absolute hatred of one another, suddenly became human beings that one could identify with and see amazing similarities with.

I guess mainly a scoring thing. You'd define certain targets to defend (for points). Think of it as just another objective for an offensive mission; except your assigned task is to defend something successfully. In this way, you get some portion of your points for offensive missions, and some for defensive ones. This would be to discourage the behavior of completely ignoring the defensive aspect of the game. It would also have the effect of bringing opposing forces together as opposed to searching aimlessly for enemies attacking targets whose location is completely unknown to you. The thing you'd have to figure out in terms of game play, is the balance you want, with respect to offense vs. defense. You masterminds of gaming fun could figure that out. Or, everyone could decide that 100% offense, 0% defense is the best way to leave things. The way things are now, it's very possible to get to a point at which spending any resources on defending anything is a waste of time. At that point, one side may decide that's it's over, and not show up anymore....kind of like throwing in your hand at cards when you know the outcome of the rest of the tricks.

Nice! Any possibility of a purely defensive mission(s) in the future? For example, the successful defense of a target gives the defending team points. The other team would have to attack the target in order to deny the defending team the points, not for any direct points for themselves. If they don't attack, they cede the points to the other side. This would have the effect of splitting the forces of any one side. The more defensive targets you define, the more it encourages it. Mainly it would help discourage going fully offensive and completely ignoring the defense of one's territory.

Your In-Game Name: BH_Hawkeye Your Squadron affiliation (if any): Black Haze Your timezone: Eastern US

Keeping in mind that it is now possible any squad might be assigned to fly on either side (is this officially a true statement yet?), will there be an official post which designates who will fly together as teams?

Thanks for the explanation, sir Butzzell! I think I see your logic and concerns, and have confidence in your superior intellect I see you're already trying the oil drums on the Eastern front map. Thanks to you and your helpers for the good work you always do!!

With respect, I think there are some counterpoints to this. Although it is very true that back in the old RB3D days, there was at times severe and outspoken controversy concerning FM/DMs that were made by members of the community who normally participated on only one side, there are levels of dissatisfaction that are much less apparent. I think a lot of us have realized over the many years that we've been members of public forums, that often the best, wisest, or at least safest policy on these forums, is not to say anything at all, considering the outright opposition or at least lack of support that will likely occur with regard to any opinions posted. What my point is, is that most people keep their opinions to themselves, regardless of what they may truly feel. Although someone may not be absolutely outraged by fighter FM/DMs, if, while flying on and against one side only, they may develop prejudices over time concerning "the other side". One way this might manifest itself, without anything at all being posted on a public forum, is to simply stop showing up for events. Have we at any time seen this? Also it is important to consider not only the fighter aspect of matchups, but the 2-seater aspect as well, since FiF in it's current form is first and foremost an offensive event. Even the heavy bomber aspect, which is pretty cut-and-dried, might open some eyes when experiencing what "the other side" experiences during operations. Although both sides have agreed on the best possible matchups to use for FiF, that doesn't mean anybody really thinks they are "equal", which is of course impossible, nor even desireable. Even if they were, there would be inherent differences on the maps and target locations that could be viewed as advantageous to one side or the other. So much of things like that are completely unintended, but nevertheless significant. One example of that I noticed on a different server recently was trying to fly a fully loaded Roland C.II out of the designated 2-seater aerodrome. The drome happened to be positioned in a valley surrounded by hills and trees on all sides; the Roland simply could not take off and climb fast enough to clear them. There was only one small gap between two hills in which the Roland could barely clear the trees. This is something that the other side could be completely unaware of. This is just one of many reasons why the "re-fly" would want to be re-flown on the same map. From a single side's point of view, the map is different due to all the geographical locations and features changing on their own side, and the enemy's, which they have to operate in. Apologies if this is the wrong place to post responses to other's statements.....I thought it might seem out of context, somewhere else. S! Lee and all-

What if the tasked bomber crew found it first and destroyed it (whether the recon plane flew together with the bomber, or not) ? Would the recon part still work properly? I am not clear why we use objects on airfields to determine the destruction of the airfield. Why do we not just use the destruction of the hangers and buildings to determine success or failure? Although there was definite problems with using parked aircraft as the targets that determined success due to the pilot often surviving regardless of the fact the planes were completely destroyed, it seems like a balloon is an awfully big target to hit.....would it become too easy? Could the three ground planes be replaced by objects of similar size, that do not defy destruction as often as the planes with pilots inside do? I think the original idea was good, the only problem was that it sometimes took too much ordinance to make sure the pilots in the planes were killed in order to get credit for the airfield destruction. Please correct my ignorance if my assumptions are wrong.....I don't claim any direct experience in these matters, only what I've heard from others.

I also wanted to add, that with regard to the flipping teams question, if anybody voted no due to being unable to participate due to the inability to purchase planes that would be required to fly "the other" side, I would be willing to provide some gift aircraft to allow them to participate. Perhaps that might be true of some others also. The "gift registry" idea is in practice right now on the main RoF forum. The requests for airplanes could be made privately through PMs to a single point of contact, who could notify anybody volunteering as donators what plane(s) is required and the forum username to send the gift code to; this in order to avoid any embarrassment the recipients might have in asking. The main goal here would be to enable everybody who wants to, to participate in FiF.

I voted undecided on the 2 sessions per week. If an additional session could be supported solely by European participants, then it shouldn't be a problem in adding one. But unless the session is scheduled at a time that is possible for both sides of the world, I fear there might not be enough attendance to be viable, since FiF is an event that is based on numbers of mission successes to win. It might be possible with fewer numbers, if careful attention is paid to ensuring both sides have as equal a number of pilots as possible; but most likely there will be a severe reduction in engagements because all resources will be needed for offensive operations, and participants could possibly see that as less enjoyable. We in BH have a couple of European members; but they have always operated as part of our core group and not as a separate entity. What would be most helpful to them and others like them, would be to reschedule the main event during a weekend day and time that allows both groups to participate together, without extreme demands on their sleep time. My belief is if you were to continue with the current scheduled time with FiF, and also add an additional session during a weekend day, without designating either one as specifically for Europeans, that most people would gravitate toward the weekend time, and the other (week night) session might suffer a loss of participants. As for myself, I would most likely only attend one session per week, regardless.

My vote, prefer option 1 or option 3

What a great post! I fully support all of the ideas presented, and am very interested to see what all other parties involved think about them. I hope everybody will take this opportunity to post whatever feelings they may have with regard to the FiF event. This is the place to air your concerns, gentlemen!! Merry Christmas, all! Salute!

BH-Salute! to the Entente team for their victory over us in FiF XIX. Black Haze appreciates the excellent attitude of our opponents, which makes fun a great part of the competition. This is not to be taken for granted in all events, and I hope it will remain the core of the FiF series. Speaking for myself, I would have no reservations whatsoever having any of you as team mates in any future event; you guys are skilled, professional, and efficient. Salute again from the Black Haze for a fun time!

Feedback: about an hour in, some moderate to heavy warping noticed. Thanks to all, a fun time !

BH_Hawkeye Squad: Black Haze

Ha ha ha.....that landing at 1:55: typical Dr.1 landing, LOL

The previous post notwithstanding, I would also like to thank all those involved with organizing FiF XVIII. It was a lot of fun, during a time when any fun was extremely welcome. My only disappointment was that it seemed to end far too soon. Especially good to me personally was the opportunity to fly the Dr.1 in an organized event atmosphere. I found it surprising that so few also seemed to see this as an advantange, although to be fair it did have pretty capable competition: the D.VIIf. The server stats do agree with the majority on that point. I hope that those most in charge will regard and pass on the thanks and congratulations of Black Haze to No. 42 and all the Entente Cordial team for their skillful and well earned victory. I personally found the opposition of opposing Camels to be much tougher than I envisioned it would be; I will not underestimate No. 42 squadron and friends in the future !!!

BH_Hawkeye Black Haze Very much looking forward to this event and match-up!