CAMPAIGN ADMIN RULING LOG

[Petr]

Hi all,

As the campaign goes by and things happen there is often the tendency to forget, or not clearly remember certain rulings so perhaps it's not a bad idea to keep a log for easy review.

Mission 1:
ES community requested refly NE => NOK
ES community requested planes lost through disco => NOK

Mission 2:
ITA community requested restore of lost ships => OK
ITA community requested restore of lost Bf109's => OK
102nd requested change in redeployment rules => OK
102nd requested undo for redeployment of the 55th Savona => NOK

Mission 3:
ITA community requested removal of IIC & Beuafighter in NW => NOK
Allied requested lost Beaufighters to be restored. => OK
ES community requested change of technics for weakening M7_Priest => NOK

Mission 4:
Allied requested troops lost through train collision restored => OK
Allied request for beacons on NW => NOK, denied by Axis side.

ITA community requested Sicily airfield attack solution => OK
All these elements combined and in the interest of having the most operational accurate, most fun and _fairest_ campaign possible, here's my proposal for NW only:
1. The Beauforts and Beaufighters (not to mention the IIC) remain in the campaign as agreed.
2. The Beaufort standin, does not receive a bomb loadout as it would make it too effective in comparison with the real Beaufort. If the Mrk12 is difficult to drop, that was mentioned during the pre-campaign meetings but no more info was presented by the Allied side and as such it was considered a non issue and closed. In any case, the speed advantage, better turn, guns and so on, is not a bad compensation for that limitation. In addition, you have Wellingtons who also have a torpedo but are much slower.
3. During phase 1, in addition to the hurricanes, Beaufighters are not allowed to attack Sicilian, Calabria or airbases in Africa or cross their coast. This phase was all about defending Malta, getting in supply and attacking enemy shipping and ports in support of the NE sector. This should give you more than enough to do I would think
4. Parked planes during missions will be reduced to 20% as per NE sector.
5. Search lights will be DEPLOYED during missions at airbases (both sides). Balloons will NOT for BOTH sectors.
6. All Axis airfields will receive a minimum of 3x 20mm AA & 3x 88mm AA. Very important airfields can have more.

Mission 5:
NE: Axis requested lost AI Ju-88 on transfer to be restored. => OK

Mission 6:
NE + NW: disabled DCS option that allowed escorts to airstart for both sectors.

[Petr]

Hi all,

I checked the loadout for the Beaufort from the appendixes of The Official British History of the Second World War, The Mediterranean Volume III, and the Beaufort could carry 1650lbs of bombs. However, the standin for the Beaufort is 100km/h faster than the plane it is replacing AND, has much better forward armament. Adding a bomb load, and turning this plane into a potential airfield buster sounds like a bad idea to me.

I want to repeat that this campaign is about historically realistic capabilities for both sides. During the time period of phase 1, the Allied simply did not have the possibilities to do these kind of mission and certainly not achieve the results you are aiming at. So it is clear you are trying to change the campaign to suite your strategy.

Furthermore, the Axis have already been severely weakened to arrive at a balanced plane set. They should have many more Mc202's to start and should be receiving 109F4's and Ju88 en masse during this period. Likewise, in pure numbers the Beaufighters are over represented. It should also be noted that the Beaufighter & the Beaufort standin (A20B7D) are already a huge topic of controversy in the ITA community. I have strongly resisted considerable efforts to remove them from the campaign. Likewise, I find it difficult to agree with the use of exactly these aircraft to do unhistorical things during this time period. Especially because they are so incredible effective in that role, those 4x forward cannons certainly can cause a lot of damage in one pass. Even more so because the planes are nicely lined up on the airfields.

All these elements combined and in the interest of having the most operational accurate, most fun and _fairest_ campaign possible, here's my proposal for NW only:
1. The Beauforts and Beaufighters (not to mention the IIC) remain in the campaign as agreed.
2. The Beaufort standin, does not receive a bomb loadout as it would make it too effective in comparison with the real Beaufort. If the Mrk12 is difficult to drop, that was mentioned during the pre-campaign meetings but no more info was presented by the Allied side and as such it was considered a non issue and closed. In any case, the speed advantage, better turn, guns and so on, is not a bad compensation for that limitation. In addition, you have Wellingtons who also have a torpedo but are much slower.
3. During phase 1, in addition to the hurricanes, Beaufighters are not allowed to attack Sicilian, Calabria or airbases in Africa or cross their coast. This phase was all about defending Malta, getting in supply and attacking enemy shipping and ports in support of the NE sector. This should give you more than enough to do I would think
4. Parked planes during missions will be reduced to 20% as per NE sector.
5. Search lights will be DEPLOYED during missions at airbases (both sides). Balloons will NOT for BOTH sectors.
6. All Axis airfields will receive a minimum of 3x 20mm AA & 3x 88mm AA. Very important airfields can have more.

For NE, Search lights will also be deployed on airfields. No further restrictions. The difference here is that both sides HAVE the same abilities/options to attack the opponents airfields.

Note: the above rule does allow for raids on Pantelleria and Lampedusa which I know happened historically. In addition, there are no restrictions on how you bomb with other planes which are allowed to attack airbases.
Note2: while I agree that the Allies should have 80km coverage to allow them to react in historical fashion it is also true that this allows for abuse by the Allied side to see planes landing in Sicilian airfields within coverage and attack them, as indeed has happened with the Beuafighters last mission.
Note3: while I agree that the overall balance required drop tanks for the Hurri's, intercepting enemy flights 60km away from Malta which are returning to base, is pushing it.

So, the Allies have already many advantages (not to forget the no refueling times for fighters, etc...) which I thought were necessary for the overall balance. It's still a tough fight for sure and it is anyone's guess how things will go. However, adding airfields attacks by beaufighters is just a step too far and it would transform this campaign into something it was never intended to be.

Perhaps not a bad moment to reflect on why these night missions are in:
1. To allow the Allies/Axis to move their ships during the night in the most dangerous stretches of the map.
2. To allow for the historical high level bombing missions on ports. The 1VP was specifically put in to make bombing runs important and profitable even if the system is difficult to configure to have the historical effects everywhere.

We can discuss how to handle phase 2 regarding this if so wanted. Please note, before phase 2 we should have the historical aircraft for the Wellingtons and Beauforts and the Br-20.

Guys, this is the best I can do to find a balance for BOTH sides and to avoid certain strategies to have an unhistorical HIGH impact because IL2 does not correctly model it's difficulty.

Please send me your improvements on the above asap.

Cheers,
Glenn

[Classic EAF19]

1 - Without the Beaufighter and Hurricane IIC there is no campaign
2 - See below
3 - See below
4 - OK
5 - OK
6 - So 6 or 12 guns for axis airfields?


2) Beauforts not allowed a bombload because of advantages in forward firepower and airspeed? What use is 4x.303cal machine guns and extra airspeed when attacking ships with torpdeo that we have to slow down to almost stall speed to drop.

I did not ask for bombs to allow airfield attacks I asked for bombs to attack ships. If we cannot use bombs and are forced to use the torpedo then the Beaufort will have to become multi-role and put its forward guns and speed to good use. Whats the harm in allowing the Beaufort to carry 2x500lb or 1x1000lb bomb? both of these loads are single drop options so there is no danger of it becoming an "airfield buster" with just one drop of a bomb(s)

In fact a little research will show that the Beaufort carried upto 2000lb bombs (it was the first RAF bomber to drop a 2000lb bomb) although most often carrying either 2x1000lb or 4x500lb so all of the DB7 loadouts are within the scope for the Beaufort. I know I raised the issue about the Mk.XII torpedo pre-campaign but I also said I had no time to test it but had no reason to as I knew it to be an issue.

Whilst the Beaufort / DB7 subsitution seems to be a hot topic lets dispel some myths that have been conjured up comparing these two machines

1) The DB7 is both larger and heavier than the Beaufort making it easier to see and hit.

2) The DB7 has a smaller wing areaand is heavier which adds to the wing loading which likely makes the Beaufort more agile when maneuvering.

3) The DB7 has a forward armament of 4x.303 machine guns (yes light machine guns not 20mm cannon or .50cal machine guns) The Beaufort Mk.I late production* had a fixed forward armament of 3x.303 machine guns which is a very close match to the DB7

4) In terms of defensive armament the Beaufort was better protected than the DB7 with a proper twin gun dorsal turret, a lateral gun position and a ventral gun position. The DB7 has just a simple mounted dorsal gun and a ventral gun.

5) In terms of airspeed the book figures suggest that the Beaufort could achieve a maximum speed of 410km/h at 2000mtr, in game the DB7 can achieve a maximum speed with overheating of 420km/h at 2000mtr

*I believe most of the Mk.Is are late production as this type was ordered off the drawing board and testing only began when the first deliveries were being made. The Mk.II began production in November 1940 which is 1 year before our campaign date so its is highly likely that the Beauforts would of been a mix of Mk.I late and Mk.II

3) Beaufighters not allowed over Sicily I presume this is just day missions as you already said we can fly night time intruder sorties which were carried out historically.

Ok to not making attacks against airfields day or night with the Beau.

I also assume some restrictions will be put in place covering the Ju88C6, after all its an aeroplane not yet in service and has just as much strafing potential as the Beaufighter

And a comment on your notes

Note2 - Beaufighters made no such attack, we picked up axis aircraft a long way from Sicily and gave chase. We certainly did not attack landing planes! In fact the rule preventing our fighters from crossing the Sicilian coast it could very easily be exploited and used against us.

Note3 - When you dont come to Malta, we are forced to come to you even when you may be on your way home, its about everyones fun right? sitting over Malta and waiting for two hours is boring and if an opportunity to get some action presents itself our fighter pilots have to be given the chance, lets keep it fun for everyone

[Petr]

2. I'll leave that to the experts. I can say that my source (THE OFFICIAL BRITISH HISTORY OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR) i.e. paid by the British Government AND their OFFICIAL version with full access to archieves for the writers states 1650lbs for MkI & II.
top speed for the MKI is listed at 236 miles/h at 5000ft
The MKII is 260 at 14500ft

Both are listed as having 4x303 machine guns.
The Beuafighter is listed with a top speed of 324m/h and we both know the A20 is considerable faster.

We also have seen from the attack on the Littorio that A20's can be flown to drop the torpedo and hit. I will believe it is not easy but you have the Wellington, slower and with a better torpedo.

I'm sorry that you did not have time before the campaign, but this can not be an excuse. I hope that next time you can find a bit of time to ellaborate and contribute during the meetings.


6. 6x guns under the condition that hurri's and Beaufighters are not allowed to attack airfields in Sicily, Calabria and Africa on NW. This includes night missions.

3. The Ju88C6 was not in service in this version but it is the only one we've got and is the antidote against the Beaufighter.
It does NOT have the same strafing potential as the Beau's. Not to speak that the only place it can strafe is Malta and that happens to be heavily defended with flak. 40+ of them in a small area. Not to speak about CAP and radar.

Note2: The stats speak differently. You destroyed several planes on the ground late in the mission and people were in the process of landing or had just landed. Whether or not you directly engaged landing aircraft is a moot point. I'm pretty sure that if you attack planes parked, you would have attacked planes landing.

I'm sorry, but I have read no new elements that pursuade me from revising the proposal and with the mission tomorrow I will implement it.

[Classic EAF19]

Petr you must be reading something wrong or the book is wrong.

But for future reference

http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/rafhistor ... ne1940.cfm
specifically
Apr-Jun 1940 - In the weeks following the German invasion of Norway, RAF bombers carry out bombing missions against enemy shipping and minelaying operations; on 7 May a Beaufort of Coastal Command drops the first 2,000lb (905kg) ......

And on this page from a well known book
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=MuGs ... lb&f=false

On the above linked page also pay attention to the note regarding 217sqns Beauforts operating from Malta

Finally by starting HSFX 7 we can see they have got it right, heres an extract of the weapon file showing the Beaufort ordnance options

#####################################################################
# BeaufortMk1Early
#####################################################################
BeaufortMk1Early.default
BeaufortMk1Early.8x250lb
BeaufortMk1Early.4x500lb
BeaufortMk1Early.2x1000lb
BeaufortMk1Early.1xtorp
BeaufortMk1Early.none

#####################################################################
# BeaufortMk1Late
#####################################################################
BeaufortMk1Late.default Default
BeaufortMk1Late.8x250lb
BeaufortMk1Late.4x500lb
BeaufortMk1Late.2x1000lb
BeaufortMk1Late.1xtorp
BeaufortMk1Late.none

#####################################################################
# BeaufortMk2
#####################################################################
BeaufortMk2.default
BeaufortMk2.8x250lb
BeaufortMk2.4x500lb
BeaufortMk2.2x1000lb
BeaufortMk2.1xtorp
BeaufortMk2.none

On the subject of airspeed I think there may be some confusion here between the DB7 and the A20. Yes of course the A20 is faster and in IL2 the A20C + G are actually the DB7A/B, both were fitted with 1600HP engines and differed in fuel tankage and armour. The DB7 which we are using is the very first model ordered by France fitted with either 1000 or 1100HP engines which is why it is much slower than the A20C/G.

Have you actually tested these airspeeds in game? I already told you that at 2000mtr the DB7 can achieve 420kmh(260mph) and it will overheat doing that. The Beaufort is listed in various places between 410kmh (254mph) and 426km/h(265mph) at 1800-1900mtr which matches this DB7 perfectly. Kindly demonstrate the 500km/h+ airspeed required to give it a 100km/h advantage over the Beaufort.

By the way yes the A20G can achieve such great speed, but we are not talking about the A20G nor the C but the plain old DB7.


6) Please clarify... we already accept the following

a) Hurricanes cannot overfly Sicily/Calabria/Africa
b) Beaufighters are not allowed to attack airfields on Sicily/Calabria/Africa during day or night

I objected to the ruling that prevents Beaufighters even flying over Sicily/Calabria/Africa, such a ruling means we cannot provide any escort to bombers day or night! You already said yourself in previous TS meetings that we will be allowed to fly intruder missions which is of course flying over enemy territory seeking to destroy roving night fighters and bombers.

One last point there is a very big difference between human occupied landing planes and parked EMPTY planes, what we attacked were simply targets they were not occupied nor were any players threatened by our actions.

Carry on as you wish and see fit, I was asked to join you on TS last week which I did and that conversation was been completely disregarded despite both sides being in agreement, and now you write me an email with this ruling and ask specifically for suggestions to be placed in this thread and not by email hence I am here with my suggestions to which you sweep aside.

[Petr]

Hi Classic,

Well if the book is wrong that would mean that the experts paid by the British Government are wrong. I'll stick to my sources.

I think I've already clearly explained my reasons for my proposal and now ruling to resolve this issue. You seem to be dragging me into details which fail to address the crucial points. Details are important, but in this situation I think they are secondary to the main arguments on the table.

Allow me to refresh: (please note, the CAPS are used to emphasize a point, certainly not to convey heightened emotions)
1. The Beaufighters & Beauforts are over represented for FUN and BALANCE reasons in this campaign. I need to check, but I think, 8 to 16 of each would probably be the historical amount, if that.
2. Neither Beauforts nor Beaufighters were historically used to attack airfields during the period covered by phase 1 (end November 41 to February 42). Since they are so effective in this role in IL2 and the British weren't stupid, I'm assuming that something that is not correctly modelled in the campaign (or IL2) prevented them from trying/doing so historically. Furthermore, the format of our campaigns is OBVIOUSLY different from reality. The only thing I CAN DO is limit the type of missions that CAN BE executed to keep the campaign within historical limits and make sure the focus of the mission lies where it should.
3. You know perfectly well that allowing Beaufighters to attack these airfields without restrictions would lead to the Axis side being forced to defend their complete coast against such attacks making it in turn almost impossible to fly the missions they flew historically. That may fit your strategy within the context of our campaigns but it would be totally UNHISTORICAL.
4. You argue for historical accuracy in bomb loads and so on, but are prepared to fly completely unhistorical operational sorties without hesitation. Something’s wrong here.
5. I have argued strongly to keep the Beauforts, Beaufighters and Hurri IIC's in the campaign and will continue to do so if at all possible, but allowing indiscriminate airfield attacks by Beaufighters is a step to far. Their 4x20mm cannons just rip a line of closely parked planes apart like it's nothing. You just need to have a look at Stuntmans video of the Crete attack and I'm sure you know what I mean.
6. Historically, the Axis would have F4's and Ju88's in large quantities during this phase. For BALANCE AND FUN reasons those were pushed back to phase 2. I still stand by this decision because otherwise the British side would just be annihilated as was historical. To now use this already seriously altered situation as a starting point to argue for allowing Beaufighters to attack airbases indiscriminately is difficult to understand from my perspective.
7. The Hurribombers IIB & IIC are used on request of the Allied side so they can avoid being forced in the air early, with the big attack coming late in the mission when they are out of fuel. To avoid this tactic drop tanks were allowed. I still stand by that decision. However, to now ABUSE that advantage/extra endurance to attack planes, 60km away from Malta, who did not even come close to Malta during the mission and who are returning home 1h45m into the mission is making me seriously question this decision. I think the Allied side should show a bit more restraint in how they USE the ADVANTAGES they received to achieve at a balance in this campaign. Furthermore, if the Allied side insists on ABUSING these ADVANTAGES given to them for BALANCE AND FUN, I can tell you right now that I will NOT be able to defend these ADVANTAGES to the Axis side much longer. The argument that CAPPING an airfield for 1h+ without action is no FUN and hence they should be allowed to do these things is frankly laughable as by allowing Beaufighters to attack airbases you would be condemning many a fighter pilot on the Axis side to do just that on a regular basis. So where's the FUN in that for them?
In any event, as a fighter pilot, I've done many cap missions without action, and I'm sure to do many more in the future. That is exactly what separates SEOW campaigns from Hyperlobby.
Alternatively, we can remove the drop tanks and I'm fine with such things (still no airfield attacks mind you). Your choice.
8. You are allowed to fly intruder missions just not with Beaufighters and Beauforts (or other A20's).
9. Do you seriously expect me to believe you that you would NOT have attacked planes landing when attacking parked planes? Seriously?

In the end m8, as you say, it is about fun and balance. Hence the changed plane set on both NE and NW Africa, which CLEARLY is to address an imbalance in the historical plane set and to the Allied advantage.

Perhaps, if you prefer, we can revert to the historical plane set and then we can discuss these restrictions again. I'm sure the Axis side would be very receptive to such a discussion.

I'm not happy that you mention what we discussed on TS (and out of context for that matter), but since you do, I KNOW that we had a gentlemen's agreement for you not to use the Beaufighters to attack airfields. As proof I will point out that you did not do it for 3 missions when I was flying Allied (while you had plenty of opportunity to do so). Only mission 4, when I flew Axis did you start. Now you can pretend we did not have the agreement, which is fine. But since I know we did, you are not doing yourself a favour.
I’ll also add that the last 10 or so times I invited you to discuss things on TS you had no time, had no motivation, preferred to play World of Tanks and what not. So, I’d be careful what you write about TS conversations.

To finish, this is not personal in any way but, personal relations and agreements ARE important. Trust in each other is fundamental and it is bad policy to fanatically defend your own views for the benefit of home consumption and for your personal position within your group. I would hope everyone UNDERSTANDS I’m not here to piss off people BUT to do what I believe is the right thing for the campaign.

Thank you for posting your views. The decision is now made and let’s move on with respect for each other and in the interest of having what you find the most important: FUN FOR ALL.

Thanks!
Glenn

[Classic EAF19]

Petr you have way with words that is beyond belief!

I will not talk with you any more and further dirty the forum that Shades so kindly provides for us, you can expect a response by email!

[Petr]

Petr you have way with words that is beyond belief!

I will not talk with you any more and further dirty the forum that Shades so kindly provides for us, you can expect a response by email!

As you wish. My door remains open for any form of communication you prefer.

Just to be clear, if I feel the subjects touched upon need to be discussed on the forum, I feel at liberty to do so.

Best,
Glenn

[II/JG77_Kemp]

Interesting discussion here, even though I have the feeling that the emotional part is starting to take control here over the matter of facts.
Anyway, I used this discussion here as an oportunity to educate myself, and have to say that I mostly ran into sources saying that Beauforts could carry 2000 lbs of bombs. It has happened before that OFFICIAL books have errors (even though "official" history versions generally tend to show "own" stuff as better rather than worse). I guess the actual bomb load is a moot point in this discussion about our campaing, as the suggestion was to remove bombs from Beaufort entirely, but this discussion offered a good oportunity to educate myself anyway.

Related to speed also most of the sources seem to indicate top speed to around 410-420 km/h. I hope the experts did not mix up 236 miles with nautical miles (knots). Worse things than that have happened, for example NASA mixing up millimetres and inches, when sending super sophisticated stuff to Mars.

I personally don't fly in NW or use bombers, so those decisions won't affect me in any way and I am in this campaing just for the fun of flying a historical campaing, so won't take headache from the battle results on the tactical level, but in general am not in favour of changing rules and settings in the middle of the game, unless some really big errors come up.

[Petr]

Updated, request NE mission 5.

[Apollo_EAF331]

Related to speed also most of the sources seem to indicate top speed to around 410-420 km/h. I hope the experts did not mix up 236 miles with nautical miles (knots). Worse things than that have happened, for example NASA mixing up millimetres and inches, when sending super sophisticated stuff to Mars.

I personally don't fly in NW or use bombers, so those decisions won't affect me in any way and I am in this campaing just for the fun of flying a historical campaing, so won't take headache from the battle results on the tactical level, but in general am not in favour of changing rules and settings in the middle of the game, unless some really big errors come up.

Moot point really in my opinion.
What speed are we discussing? IAS, TAS, GND, CAS, EAS. What is the reference altitude? As we know the TAS increases with an increase in altitude.
So, what I'm trying to get to is that some one testing at sea level will have different results compared to someone testing at 25000 ft.
There are too many variables. To argue over 13 or 30 knots/ kmh or mph is a waste of time. Is Mach 0.80 faster at 35000 ft or at 1000 ft?
And guess what? You can not carry the same payload in the desert as you can in Siberia.

This stuff has to be tested in game on the same map and can not be compared to historical data made by one side or the other.

[Apollo_EAF331]

Related to speed also most of the sources seem to indicate top speed to around 410-420 km/h. I hope the experts did not mix up 236 miles with nautical miles (knots). Worse things than that have happened, for example NASA mixing up millimetres and inches, when sending super sophisticated stuff to Mars.

I personally don't fly in NW or use bombers, so those decisions won't affect me in any way and I am in this campaing just for the fun of flying a historical campaing, so won't take headache from the battle results on the tactical level, but in general am not in favour of changing rules and settings in the middle of the game, unless some really big errors come up.

Moot point really in my opinion. I agree with Kemp.
What speed are we discussing? IAS, TAS, GND, CAS, EAS. What is the reference altitude? As we know the TAS increases with an increase in altitude.
So, what I'm trying to get to is that some one testing at sea level will have different results compared to someone testing at 25000 ft.
There are too many variables. To argue over 13 or 30 knots/ kmh or mph is a waste of time. Is Mach 0.80 faster at 35000 ft or at 1000 ft?
And guess what? You can not carry the same payload in the desert as you can in Siberia.

This stuff has to be tested in game on the same map and can not be compared to historical data made by one side or the other.

[Petr]

It's always interesting to hear the opinion of someone not closely involved in discussions like this. It gives us a feel in how far our argumentation is helping an observer to make his own conclusions. So thank you both for posting.

On sources, well, they have prooven very reliable when I had mulitple impecable sources to verify.

For example, on the number of tanks I have the book already mentioned for the Allied side and Jentz Panzertruppen Vol. I & II for the Axis and they match up really well. I also have the 3 volumes of George F. Nafzinger on The German Order of Battle and again all checks out. These are ground related but they do give an opportunity to verify the data of the book under discussion, and everything that can be verified turns out to be true.

On the Beaufort loadout, the discussion is not to take away the bombs, but to add them. The cost page with the loadouts has been available for review and ammendment at least 8 weeks before the campaign started. The following was in the rules, available on this forum and sent to the commanders through email as well:

3. Load outs will be very restricted.
a. It is strongly recommended to check the load outs through the cost page in SEOW.
b. Generally, the CW will have only 1000lbs bombs or lower.
c. Generally, the Axis will have only 500kg bombs or lower.
d. This represents historical limitations AND will also make it harder to sink ships.
e. Only types classified as Fighter-Bombers will have bombs load outs available.

No Allied requests or suggestions to add bombs to the Beaufort before the campaign were received. You can check the meeting minutes held before the campaign here: viewtopic.php?t=2819

Regarding rule changes, this is in the rules:
RULE CHANGES
During a phase we should aim to have no rule changes at all. However, some unforeseen situation can arise that may force us to intervene to keep the historical balance and/or plausibility. As such, when 3 admins and I agree on a change it can be implemented. If this happens all commanders and pilotswill be informed and will be expected to accept this decision with respect.

Changes in between phases will be discussed with all the commanders and admins. The final decision to implement a rule change and/or introduce new rules to handle the particular phase will rest with the designer.

This was written when we would still have a 3 admin format, which turned out to be impossible. Simply not enough people were available.
I asked the commanders (I have an email distribution list with all the planners involved) how they wanted to handle this, and whether they were prepared to accept my judgement if no other solution could be found. No one replied, which I take as agreeing.

I have to say though that most groups have accepted the decisions I have had to make so far with grace. Thanks for that. The rules are what they are and they will never be perfect before the campaign. They might approach a measure of completeness after the campaign, when it is too late. So when and where can the admin intervene? A VERY good question.

If you look at the discussion from the outside it is pretty easy to get confused from all the details, which then again are necessary to narrow down to the facts. If I would be pressed to make a 1 slide management summary, it would be this:

New request for loadout not in the rules: not agreed by both sides => NOK

Extra restrictions on Axis airfield attacks to prevent the campaign going down the toilet.

Warning to Allied side that abusing unhistorical drop tanks on Hurri's (put in the campaign on their request) will risk loosing that capability.

End of slide.

On the last subject, they rules specify this:
4. NW Africa, special case: Hurribomber IIB & IIC
a. The correct variants would have been the NONE bomber versions. However, these have no drop tanks available in the game and I felt it was necessary to give the Allies drop tank capability considering the mission duration.
b. Only 2x44Gallons drop tanks are available.
c. Should this ability be abused to gain an unhistorical advantage this capacity will be removed. For example, using hurricanes to escort bombers on attacks of Sicily is considered unhistorical.
d. British single engine non-carriers equipped (no hook) fighters should not cross the coast of Sicily or North Africa even should fuel permit.
e. Note: During phase 1 and phase 2, the Allies simply did not have this capability and were fighting for their lives at Malta. Let's focus on historical capabilities and keep things fair.

As you can read, IF I would want to play it very strict I WOULD be in my right to take the drop tanks away over this. The fact that I don't is that I'm convinced that the initial reasons for putting them there are still valid and I really hope that the Allied side will see the sense of some restraint.

There is an other element to this issue: radar coverage and its reach on the map we are using. The map is what it is and it's a damn good one. RedEye_Jir went out of his way to help in preparation of this campaign. In other words, the Allies see to far what's going on on the Axis side because of the scale of the map. All commanders know this. All commanders know this has been under dispute. So why push these advantages to extremes? Why get the very bottom out of it and antagonize the other side? So I'm asking, pleading with the Allied side to take it easy and use some judgement and constraint. Thank you!

Cheers,
Petr

[II/JG77_Kemp]

Thanks for clarification, Petr.
Like I have said before, I personally like quite strict approach to rule changes during a phase, so the official policy about it looks quite good actually.

[EAF19_Charlie]

Listen to opinions of someone who is not closely related eh??

Here's mine..

SHOVE IT!