I think we all know the issues.

We should treat the campaign as an opportunity to run some nice coordinated squadron action and whatever happens happens.

I want to shoot down the enemy before he gets me as much as the next guy! I'd like to survive this campaign. That's my goal. Shooting down enemy bombers and fighters is secondary objective.

So if I get up to altitude, spot a bomber formation and attack it, drawing 109s onto me, I'll dive or evade as much as possible to get back towards England. If its inevitable that I get shot down, then that's that, but if I can bail out over England and fight another day, well that's one or two 109s that I drew away from the bombers plus I survived.

No kills for me, but I still call it a good contribution.

The statistics page is going to heavily lean towards the Blue I'm afraid. I'm okay with that simply because it really doesn't matter to me with my own personal goals that I feel are achievable with what I have. I will be tracking No.401 performance in this campaign on my own based on my own criteria anyway.

After all, in a war there's never some overarching body that declares the winner at the end of a battle. Both sides make their own conclusions and carry on from there.

EDIT: I will add this though. I think anyone who brags about 'winning' these scenarios or even in dogfight servers is expressing incredibly poor form given the state of the game. I hope that both sides will understand and respect that. No one in historical re-enactments brags about being on the winning side. They're just happy to be able to participate in the event and thankful that there were people portraying the opposing side. So I'm thankful we have human Blue opposition and human Red allies. We all win.

In the RAF, 'line shooting' is frowned upon ;)

Indeed. I wonder if the Luftwaffe had a similar phrase?

Good post Wolverine. Survival first objective second is also the motto of our Staffel. If they dont survive they dont get anything added to their careers (which only count in these squad vs squad events). So its not about kills - or victories as I prefer to call them but getting the job done with all your body parts intact and a pulse. ;)

Douglas Bader would argue that point :P

Yea but most people agree he was an arogant c***... I mean that in the niciest possible way of course. I dont hate him.

They had a similar philosophy, certainly in WW1 when there was more chivalry. I think it was tainted by the Nazi propaganda machine though which needed 'heroes', and some may have taken advantage of this. Marseille for example, 17 kills in a sortie which DAF records don't support? Lies I tell ya!

Fixed that for you ;)

Doesn't matter how many sorties, he never did it or you'd have at least similar records in the DAF showing big losses. Johnnie Johnson was so suspicious of his claims that he went and researched it personally just after the war and being a Group Captain had access to the RAF records. His conclusion was that Marseille and his wingman, who frequently went out alone, made a lot of them up.
Let's face it, it got him promotion, trips out of the war and into Berlin for as many fraulines as he could handle ;) Why wouldn't he?

But I am open to correction on this interesting topic, another thread?

Or we could just leave it for the historians... ;)

That way I dont have to fish out my massive tome on Marseille and start reading and I really dont have time for that and the campaign. :-P