Example CIC orders

[Stoney]

Since the announcement of the new rule, I have devised at least 3 ways to follow the letter of the rule, but not its intent.

Do tell...

[WxMan]

Do tell...

My biggest concern is whether the CM's will judge any action on what is written, .....or why it was written. I fear the latter, for all it will do will be to produce more restrictive rules.

You address my concerns, then I will address yours.

[WxMan]

Many of your arguments go beyond your displeasure with the new rule, but are critical of the way we have been designing FSO for years.  

Not true, my reply (#39) was simply a response to yours about unknowns in the event. I'll endorse that some of the rules were necessary for game play, i.e. all fields defended/attack and even grudgingly the original T+60 rule, as it was necessary to hold the players interest in the event. But remember at that time a fighter sweep was considered to fullfill the requirement.  The other rules that were implemented in my opinion were just more restrictions added on, perhaps without the consideration of amending others.

I was even ready to accept this latest ruling based on Ghostdancer's reply about how follow on attacks could muddy the scoring. The Lord knows how hard you CM's work on preparing for and operating each event, and I would never stand in the way of a rule that would lighten your load. But then you announced the "intent" of this latest ruling, which as I can see being the basis for other even more restrictive rulings.

If all of what you say is true then you should be able to design CiC orders that will completely predict what the other CiC will do and you would win every single time with few losses on your side. That has not been the case with anyone.

The truth is that in my "FSO Career", I have CiC'd almost two dozen times and have won many more than I have lost. This is because I spend up to 30 hours of my free time along with some of my squad mates for each event calculating climb rates, distance and time to targets, fuel consumption for both sides and then formulating a strategy that is effective most times. No CiC can win every time, but I try to give my side every advantage based on my experience.

[Saxman]

How do you fly around for 2 hours without seeing any red guys? That ONLY happens when:
1. The CiC sent out FUBAR orders.
2. A squad ignores the T+60 rule (that some want me to remove and how does that make any sense?)
3. A squad is a no-show.

You can also fly around for 2 hours without seeing any red guys when you're defending and the strike package assigned to your target was jumped and annihilated 20 minutes into the frame.

[AKKuya]

The best information I can truly provide on why the T+60 rule has caused the problems with CIC planning is this.

Specific Rules:
Each B5N2 and B-17G that lands successfully at the end of the frame will receive a x5 pilot bonus.

The B-17G can only carry 100lbs bombs.

The B-17G must carry 100% fuel


These rules are stated on the homepage of the FSO in Special Events for all to see including Ais CIC's.  My data will no way affect the outcome of strategies and tactics of each Frame.


In offline mode, I took up a B-17 with 100% fuel and 24X100 lb. bombs.

9:28  Takeoff   800 Climb Rate (CR)  137 True Air Speed (TAS)
9:32   3000 ft   800 CR    142 TAS
9:37   7000 ft   760 CR    150 TAS
9:41   10,000 ft  700 CR   157 TAS
9:46    13,000 ft  650 CR  165 TAS
9:49   15,000 ft   600 CR   171 TAS
9:54   18,000 ft   550 CR   178 TAS
9:58   20,000 ft   500 CR   185 TAS
10:02  22,000 ft  460 CR   192 TAS


In many other FSO's, other heavy bombers were used with different bomb loads and fuel loads.  The climb rates are still very close to one another in a broad sense.  It takes time to get the BUFFs into the air.

This was done in offline mode.  Ideal situation without the fear of being attacked.  One bomber by itself on a heading straight from runway takeoff.

In FSO, 15 players taking BUFFs up at one time.  The bomber group staying in close formation.  The group making course corrections to follow the path outlined from the CIC orders.  Lead bombers having to slow down to allow rear bombers to catch up.  The group getting to the assigned bomb altitude and speed for calibration.  All of this while being concerned from enemy attack.  That's combat.

That has to be done before T+60.  Most bomber groups are being rushed to get this done by not being able to get to a higher altitude of 22,000 ft or more plus new ceiling rules.

CIC's choose the routes for the strike groups.  They choose routes that take the strike groups away from the enemy to allow for climb time.  This adds more time to being enroute to target.  Forcing the groups to level off at 15-18,000 ft., making them the SKEET for defending fighters.

On the opposite side with ceiling restrictions, bombers at 24,000 ft with restrictions at 26,000 ft prevent defending fighters optimal attack dives onto the bombers.  Even a bomber guy like me acknowledges the other hand.

More to follow on this subject.

   

[daddog]

The truth is that in my "FSO Career", I have CiC'd almost two dozen times and have won many more than I have lost. This is because I spend up to 30 hours of my free time along with some of my squad mates for each event calculating climb rates, distance and time to targets, fuel consumption for both sides and then formulating a strategy that is effective most times. No CiC can win every time, but I try to give my side every advantage based on my experience.

Of that I have little doubt, unlike my CiC score over the years where I have lost all but one or two times.   Your time, efforts, investment in FSO is greatly appreciated, but I still feel (the way some have presented it) if all that was put forth is true, then a CiC should have a record of 100% with few losses to his side. 

You can also fly around for 2 hours without seeing any red guys when you're defending and the strike package assigned to your target was jumped and annihilated 20 minutes into the frame.

Ya, I forgot that one. I guess some times things will just not go our way.

Rgr, I will wait for the rest AKKuya.

[Squire]

There are no "new ceiling rules".

Every FSO has a small # of event specific rules (some dont), but any alt restriction is specific to that design *only*.

For info. I dont want to see rumours starting about standing FSO rules that dont exist.

I dont see any alt restrictions in the current setup.

[AKKuya]

Rgr, I will wait for the rest AKKuya.

I'm working on example CIC orders for a fictional FSO.  These will illustrate what I'm talking about.  They will be done around Sunday or Monday and posted in this thread.

There are no "new ceiling rules".

Every FSO has a small # of event specific rules (some dont), but any alt restriction is specific to that design *only*.

For info. I dont want to see rumours starting about standing FSO rules that dont exist.

I dont see any alt restrictions in the current setup.

It wasn't my intention to state them like that as FSO rules.  Just the memory card in my head recalls the alt restricions becoming used fairly often now in the last year of the FSO's.

[daddog]

I'm working on example CIC orders for a fictional FSO.  These will illustrate what I'm talking about.  They will be done around Sunday or Monday and posted in this thread.

I would hate to see you spend a lot of time on something that would be 'fictional'. I really respect your efforts here AKKuya and I am not trying to be a jerk, (contrary to the belief of some) I know your really trying to make your point and sway my decision, but from the get go it will not hold much weight because your not basing it on an FSO we have run or using examples from recent FSO's.

Many of the problems we 'could' have would be due to a poor design by the CM's, not the rules. Just about anyone could create an FSO design that would have a laundry list of problems, but all due to a poor design. Sure someone could point to the rules being the issue here, but the rules are also eliminating a host of other problems.

[Stoney]

9:28  Takeoff   800 Climb Rate (CR)  137 True Air Speed (TAS)
9:32   3000 ft   800 CR    142 TAS
9:37   7000 ft   760 CR    150 TAS
9:41   10,000 ft  700 CR   157 TAS
9:46    13,000 ft  650 CR  165 TAS
9:49   15,000 ft   600 CR   171 TAS
9:54   18,000 ft   550 CR   178 TAS
9:58   20,000 ft   500 CR   185 TAS
10:02  22,000 ft  460 CR   192 TAS

Maybe, just maybe, the Admin didn't want the B-17s to climb to 22,000 feet...  Climb to 12-15,000', level off and you have 40 minutes to cruise to target.  Even at 220 TAS (which is plenty slow to keep the formation together) you'll have a 120 mile + range (almost 5 sectors) to target before T+60.

[Anaxogoras]

Maybe, just maybe, the Admin didn't want the B-17s to climb to 22,000 feet...  Climb to 12-15,000', level off and you have 40 minutes to cruise to target.  Even at 220 TAS (which is plenty slow to keep the formation together) you'll have a 120 mile + range (almost 5 sectors) to target before T+60.

+1

Hitting the target by T+60 is not a problem if you don't insist on climbing into low Earth orbit.

[haasehole]

 I thought there was a little flexiblity on the +60 issue.  with  cloud cover sometimes high alt bombers need to make a 2nd pass to get vis on target. lets say for example 1 st pass @ +55 @ 18k on vis no ord dropped, 2 pass +65 @ 12 k vis and ord dropped. would there be a penatly or not ?

[daddog]

First pass @ +55 minutes? They are on time in my book. I really doubt any Admin CM would penalize if they could not drop due to clouds.

[haasehole]

 that what we thought ty 

[AKKuya]

I would hate to see you spend a lot of time on something that would be 'fictional'. I really respect your efforts here AKKuya and I am not trying to be a jerk, (contrary to the belief of some) I know your really trying to make your point and sway my decision, but from the get go it will not hold much weight because your not basing it on an FSO we have run or using examples from recent FSO's.

Many of the problems we 'could' have would be due to a poor design by the CM's, not the rules. Just about anyone could create an FSO design that would have a laundry list of problems, but all due to a poor design. Sure someone could point to the rules being the issue here, but the rules are also eliminating a host of other problems.

That's true on the fictional FSO.  I'll scrap that.   

The FSO design by the CM's, I now understand the unintentional flaws from my early work on my fictional FSO. The saying, until you do it yourself you'll never understand.  I know they spend alot of time designing them and respect their time and dedication to the work.

Maybe, just maybe, the Admin didn't want the B-17s to climb to 22,000 feet...  Climb to 12-15,000', level off and you have 40 minutes to cruise to target.  Even at 220 TAS (which is plenty slow to keep the formation together) you'll have a 120 mile + range (almost 5 sectors) to target before T+60.

This is a very clear point in my assesement the bomber part of the FSO is getting worse.  Stoney suggested a reasoning for the Admin's line of thinking.  The amount of distance to target with limited time available for climbing plus the directional course changes has resulted in the "rush for bombers to get to target before T+60".

Bombers at 15,000 to 18,000 ft are at a disadvantage from enemy fighters.  Enemy CAP is patrolling at 22,000 ft and calls start with location and altitude of bombers.  Enemy fighters have the alt advantage which is proper for initial engagement.  Fighters dive toward bombers and unleash first wave of fire in hopes of destroying or massively damaging them.  That's all right.

The disadvantage part is the faster recovery time for the fighters to reascend back to 20,000 due to thicker air and faster climb rates for secons passes.  When the bombers at 22,000 feet get first attack, the enemy CAP takes a little longer for altitude recovery and the fighter engines work a little harder to maintain fights at that altitude.

That would imply that FSO designs are now being catered for easy picking on bombers forced to fly at lower altitudes.  This has been most likely an oversight from spacing targets from each other to give clear area of operations for attackers and defenders at a target.

I have noticed in the new updated CIC rules that the mininum numbers for attackers and defenders have been removed.  And, at the bottom a special note that in real life you don't plan on being fair but in the community we plan to making sure everone has something to do.  Not word for word but the general gist of it.

Does this mean that attacks before T+60 now can be comprised of small numbers and set up for main attack after T+60?

Would this allow future CIC's to say send a small JABO run to a target around T+30 to satisfy the T+60 rule enabling the bombers to spend the 45 minutes climbing to 22,000 ft for proper navigation and line up on targets after T+60?

If this is the new way, then my concerns would be over.  Bombers would get their proper place in aerial warfare.  Everbody would have a part in it because the bombers coming in at T+75 or so would constitute Part 2 of the FSO.

When a bomber group takes off with 12-15 players, it takes time to climb.  More time on allowing stragglers to catch up from the initial climb and making the directional changes.  Lastly, setting the speed to lower RPM's and Manifold for better Time Over Target increases Time To Target.

To use an analogy from the world of sports, fighters are like basketball players.  They dash back and forth in a quick hustle for control of the board.  Bombers are like bass fisherman who enjoy the slow crawl of time until the moment of action.

I just want the CM's to know that I'm not critical of the rules being fair for balanced play.  Just for the way the bombers are being pushed into basketball hustle for the sake of being on time.  All 500 players deserve a chance to participate.

With the new survival bonus points being implemented, players who on an occasion spend 2 hours flying around with no opposition due to circumstances (either attackers stopped cold before target or being in the wrong places at the wrong times) can still help by landing successfully for their side.  It's a small consolation for one night.

Sometimes it takes awhile to get a point across for all to understand.