OVERALL CAMPAIGN SCORES

[22GCT_FLY]

If a person can honestly say that they enjoyed flying in some of the 170 missions generated they 'WON' !
Thats all thats important.
In terms of Il2 and SEOW development, we all 'WIN' also...

I WIN!



tks to all, camarade and opponents,, admins an developers
enemy & friends and simply acquaintances

[=AVG=Storm]

Gentlemen, as Chap has said: who cares???

Why are we arguing about having contested an airfield or not having captured an island? Some scenarios were lopsided, for sure, but we chose to fly in them. Now the campaign is over, are we just going to remember who won and lost? If that's the case we might as well have run the campaign with AI.

Cipson if you think the F4 vs Spit matchup was in the allied favour, think about the P40 vs A6M2/A6M3 matchup, or worse the F4 vs P400/LaGG matchup. A lot of people had it hard on both sides, they did the best they could, and hopefully they had fun. Let's move on.

I care. We all spent 6 months of our lives developing and working towards our objectives. We are all human and, like it or not, many of us have a healthy sense of competition here. This is not Little League Baseball in Connecticut where keeping score has been outlawed to preserve everyone's self esteem.

The GK area in Kuban was hotly contested for many weeks and both sides feel a sense of pride for the efforts made to defend it and to take it over. I think we respect each other all the more because we fought so hard for our objectives. The reason this campaign was worthwhile, in my opinion, is because we all took this so seriously and put so much into it. Passion is what makes life worth living!

I remember a certain Malysh who seemed to care quite a bit at times throughout this campaign.

[=69.GIAP=MALYSH]

we should feel proud about what we did and care about it while we are doing it but, revisiting victory conditions after the campaign is over is pointless. GK was not and is not a control point. This does not diminish the axis attack or the Soviet defense in any way, but saying "we fought well, we fought hard" and "well we took GK, the actual victory condition was impossible" are two very different things.

Arguing about who won or lost, who should have won or lost... do we really care about that? The campaign is over, what mattered is what happened on the ground. Renaming a victory condition in the Kuban or the Med changes nothing, and arguing about how to interpret these events, whether "this" constitutes a victory or "that", whether the original objective was reasonable and therefore a defeat should be counted as a victory, that feels cheap to me. If we're proud of how we fought, if we had a good time, if WE think we did well, considering the circumstances, what else matters?

[242Sqn_Chap]

Well said Malysh !

[IV/JG7_4Shades]

OK, that's that.

What's next?

Cheers,
4Shades

[=AVG=Storm]

You guys are so Euro!

What's next? How about a campaign involving counter-insurgency? Winning the hearts and minds of the native inhabitants. Building schools and infrastrucure. Holding free elections, etc. Maybe the UN could do some inspections?

[Faustnik]

Maybe I'm a little slow but, I think

Red won

Blue lost


So, I lost. CR@P.

[LW/JG10_Luny]

I apologize for my post about the Goryachiy Kluch airfield and such.

Wasn't my intention to create disturbance.

I really don't care if we win or lose that map as we had lot of fun in every challenging situation we experienced, wich was our main goal.

Salute

[_1SMV_Mako]

Win? Loose?
What does win or loose mean in a "campaign" that is intended to simulate 3 (three) days of war?
Just as a reminder, in terms of the meaning of TIME in big battles, and therefore in war, the Allied took 12 full days and nights of fierce fighting to break the frontline at El Alamein in Oct - Nov 1942. No need to mention many other examples...

So, whenever we discuss about winning or loosing, through the analysis of a point system, surely we move psychologically towards those little, "puny" tournaments of many types that were and are still functioning in the world of the IL2 simulator.
And that are so much blamed and underestimated by most of the people around here .
But, as it was said, this approach is in fact very human, natural in most of the people who participated in this long lasting, and above all very involving simulation activity.
Then, is it a form of contradiction? Yes, I think so, a natural contradiction for the pilots who participated.

On the other side, if we really want to free ourselves from these "human weaknesses" of a strong spirit of competitiveness, from the attention to every single point (or thousand of points) gained or lost, and if we really want to go towards a kind of simulation to be considered more "historical" than "competitive", I think that at least three pre-conditions should be applied in the future....
a) administrators themselves should lower the importance of a point system in planning campaigns, and especially in evaluating the results. (a.bis - if it is intended to be kept working, it should be crystal clear for all, from the beginning to the end)
b) an even bigger effort is to be made to avoid "unhistorical" situations, both in planning the campaign and in realizing it (see point c). For instance, an industrial production that in 3 (three) days of battle alters so heavily the balance of forces on ground and in air, in my personal opinion is not correct, whatever the advantage or disadvantage to blue or red faction.
c) The representatives of the 2 factions should form a "commission" and perform official "virtual meetings" in order to confront their opinions, solve controversies, adjust the rules, under the coordination of the administrators.

THEN, AFTER ALL, THANKS TO THE ADMINISTRATORS AND ORGANIZERS FOR GIVING THIS OPPORTUNITY TO US, AND TO ALL THE PILOTS THAT SHARED THIS EXPERIENCE WITH ME!!!

[LLv16 jager]

Thank you everybody for the Campaign.



Now take a vacasion from flying, it's summertime...
On the behalf of LLv16 thank you and enjoy the sun!