Unintended Consequences

[Dantoo]

I wish to draw the rulemakers attention again to what I believe will be unintended consequences of recent rule changes:

Specifically

- Frame C.O.’s may spilt larger squads (11-15 or larger) as deemed necessary. Larger squads must aim for a 50/50 spilt or as close as possible when using 2 aircraft. Larger squads may only fly 2 different aircraft.

- Frame C.O.’s may not split smaller squads (7-10 or smaller).

Now that this rule exists it will become a problem for frame CO's to share around the plum rides.  Take this upcoming event where perk rides 262's, Tempests and Spit 14s are invlolved.  There is a maximum limit on the number of them to be used.

In the past these rides could be divided between 2 or more smaller squads and the proviso "Take no more than X planes" used.   If a smaller squad had a couple of extra roll up then they could utilise a non-limited plane to issue to the
extras so that they can join in and fly with the squad.

Now we have fewer opportunities:

Frame CO's only give the plum rides to larger squads (though how they get round the 50/50 thing eludes me) or,

Squads can only use those rides allocated and any extra pilots told to log off, or at best just watch or,

Squads of any size having in excess of the allocated rides have to tell their pilots to go find another squad to fly with for the day.

None of those options is at all palatable and none of them is in spirit with an event that looks to involve squads in fun events.

Whatever you were trying to achieve to with these rule changes, I suspect it wasn't this.  Please revisit your goals and find another way to achieve them; a way that doesn't have such potential to pizz off a lot of people real fast.

[skernsk]

That rule exists because of a problem we had a while back with a large number of one planetype being used.  Unfotunately we had to make that rule up in order to avoid a repeat.

This is the first time any 'situation' had resulted from the new rule.  I have not consulted with any other CM's nor Nef who is in charge of FSO.  All comments below are my own and not necessarily the opinion of the CM team.

Frame CO's only give the plum rides to larger squads (though how they get round the 50/50 thing eludes me) or,

The rule states 50/50 split, or as close as possible.  With a limit of 15 262's or 12 Spits we would assume that the squad would go with the max number of restricted rides and fill the remainder of its ranks with another plane.  Again, this rule is in place to keep a Frame CO from putting one pilot in one plane and the rest in another in order to have it's 5 or 6 rides etc.

I see no problem here

Squads can only use those rides allocated and any extra pilots told to log off, or at best just watch or,

The rule is squads 7-10 or smaller cannot split.  So, assuming you have your max (12 pilots) you will be at or below the 12 or 15 max number of planes.  Nodody needs to sit out.

Squads of any size having in excess of the allocated rides have to tell their pilots to go find another squad to fly with for the day.

If squads have any excess pilots they should be registered at 11-15 or larger allowing them to split the squad.  If you are a 4-6 squad you can field 8 pilots and even then all are in the perk ride and nobody sits out.  Are you looking for things to argue about or do I completely misunderstand this point here?  Forgive me, I just got home and took the workboots off after yet another 14 hour day.

None of those options is at all palatable and none of them is in spirit with an event that looks to involve squads in fun events.

Umm, I disagree.  And here is why.  You have 12 or 15 max planes.  Lets deal with the large squads first.

11-15 or larger can slpit 50/50 or as close as possible as the rule states.  The big squads max the perk planes and the rest get one other plane.  No harm no foul its all good.

7-10 - they can have 12 pilots max.  If any MORE than 12 showed they would have to sit or move to another squad regardless of the plane they were in.  So, they get 12 pilots ... all get perk planes.  If any more show up, the squad CO should be looking at the commitment level of his squad.

4-6.  Can have a total of 8 pilots max.  The perk planes can be divided up among two small squads allowing all to fly a perk plane.  Most small squads never go over 6, and I know this because we track the numbers of all squads every frame.  IF for some strange reason this happend the squad CO could contact the set-up CM, explain the issue and at that time I am sure that squad would not have to sit that player out.  

Whatever you were trying to achieve to with these rule changes, I suspect it wasn't this. Please revisit your goals and find another way to achieve them; a way that doesn't have such potential to pizz off a lot of people real fast.

As soon as you can convince me that the rule is porked I will revisit it.  That rule is there because of some er creative Frame COing and that pizzed alot of people off.  Every time a loophole is exploited expect a new rule ... and learn to live with it because, believe me, making rules for a bunch of grown-ups to play fair sucks.

[Dantoo]

Are you looking for things to argue about or do I completely misunderstand this point here?

Of all the arrogant unhelpful and nasty pieces of reply trash, you have just taken the cake!

I have simply put forward a view that there is a problem that exists and will exist until there is clarification or change.  Your attitude borders upon the miserable.

I will try and remain calm and explain in sentences short enough for you.

Your new rule doesn't address directly the problem you are trying to solve.  It brings forward new problems for a frame CO.

This is the first time any 'situation' had resulted from the new rule.

Drivel!  Did you bother to read the problems that arose during the last event simply because of this rule?  Read the posts again - then read your statement.

I am not going to put it all forward again, it's still there to be read.  I will deal with just one point.  If you insist on not getting it then so be it.

The rule is squads 7-10 or smaller cannot split. So, assuming you have your max (12 pilots) you will be at or below the 12 or 15 max number of planes. Nodody needs to sit out.

Did you bother to read the example I gave?  I will explain in the context of an example that actually happened in the last scenario.  The frame CO shared a limited ride between 3 smaller squads.  The proviso was that if more players rolled up than planes were available (4-6 can field 8, possible max of 24 for 3 squads) then the excess had to fly other rides.  Your rule forbids the splitting of smaller squads.

These rules you have introduced do not directly address the issue you are trying to fix.  They have already caused problems.  They will cause problems in the future.

A simpler way needs to be found that does not cause unintended complexity and outcomes.

Try looking at a few of these, they are just from the top of my head.  They also might have problems, but they seem closer to what you are trying to achieve.

"A Frame CO may not have more than 50% of his players allocated to a single plane type".

"A Frame CO may not have less than 10% of players allocated to any single plane type."

Another way would simply be for any scenario to state the minimum  numbers for a particular plane to be used.  We have maximums now, so minimums can't be such a big worry.

Next time somebody offers up some advice after seeing a problem, don't be so bloody rude.

[skernsk]

Originally posted by Dantoo
Of all the arrogant unhelpful and nasty pieces of reply trash, you have just taken the cake!

As I stated right after that .. Are you looking for things to argue about or do I completely misunderstand this point here? Forgive me, I just got home and took the workboots off after yet another 14 hour day.


I knew you would not like that statement, but I simply did not understand your comment, and still don't.  When you further explained that a Frame CO divided up rides among three squads it shed some light on it though.  Doing that is about the only way I can see where a Frame CO might run into issues with the new rule.  

I will try and remain calm and explain in sentences short enough for you.

Thank you and please .. type slowly also:aok



 

Drivel!  Did you bother to read the problems that arose during the last event simply because of this rule?  Read the posts again - then read your statement.

No I did not actually.  I do not remember reading anything about the squad splitting rule.  We did talk alot about squads not seeing action.  I'll go look again.

Try looking at a few of these, they are just from the top of my head.  They also might have problems, but they seem closer to what you are trying to achieve.

"A Frame CO may not have more than 50% of his players allocated to a single plane type".

"A Frame CO may not have less than 10% of players allocated to any single plane type."

Another way would simply be for any scenario to state the minimum  numbers for a particular plane to be used.  We have maximums now, so minimums can't be such a big worry.

These were discussed in the rule process.  I was only there for part of the discussion but I do remember each of those being discussed.  For whatever reason the rule was set as it is now.  

Next time somebody offers up some advice after seeing a problem, don't be so bloody rude.

Sure thing Dantoo, sorry if I was harsh.  This issue is quite sensitive for me, if you recall I was in charge of the FSO debacle where 100+ LA5's swarmed the SEA one frame.  I will do whatever it takes to avoid that in the future.  IF it means perk rides not being split among 3 squads so be it.  Perk rides can easily be split among 2 squads, I see that as a fair and easy to deal with for a Frame CO.

[Nefarious]

The rule was implemented to avoid a scene where squads were being split and/or using more than two different types of aircraft. Lots of CM's were together and stewed about this for weeks after Skernsk's event, And the best conclusion was what we came too now.

As you know most of the CM's are also FSO Squad CO's and Im sure had we seen a problem in the design of the rule we would have seen a different measure taken.

"Frame CO's only give the plum rides to larger squads (though how they get round the 50/50 thing eludes me) or,

Squads can only use those rides allocated and any extra pilots told to log off, or at best just watch or,

Squads of any size having in excess of the allocated rides have to tell their pilots to go find another squad to fly with for the day.

None of those options is at all palatable and none of them is in spirit with an event that looks to involve squads in fun events."

You have brought up some pretty valid points, And they deserved to be looked at.

[Dantoo]

Apologise for biting so hard but almost every time I try to post something constructive on the AH BBS the first response is derogatory and insulting.  I am way tired of it.

Look at this way, go back to the scenario that caused you the problem.  Read the instructions that were issued to the Frame CO.  Test and see if these new rules now ensure the outcome you were after.

Do these new rules prevent the frame CO from making most of his rides La5's or goons or whatever?

If it was run again next week, what is there in this amendment that prevents essentially the same thing happening again?

We had a scenario recently that was on the Italian terrain.  My memory, poor as it is, recalls a similar preponderence of P47's in  the last frame at least.  So this type of thing is still happening.  If it's balance and fairness you are looking for then you may be justified in making a rule change.  I contend that "this" rule change isn't going to get the outcome you want, but rather will get outcomes you don't want.  Already there is this post for instance.

These new rules cause real problems for Frame CO's trying to fairly spread the rides around during the planning stage. As they stand and read, CO's are greatly handicapped in what they can do for a squad now. This will not lead to universal happiness.

My original post says "Please revisit your goals and find another way to achieve them" and now I will have the temerity to add further:

This seems to be your options:

You can enforce the new rules exactly as they read.
You can clarify and clarify and clarify until they are understood somewhat differently to how they read.
You can scrap them and bring in new words that deliver what you want and esentially only what you want.

I only posted a request for you to consider the rule changes again accompanied by a somewhat wordy reasoning.  It seemed fairly benign to me.

[Dantoo]

The rule was implemented to avoid a scene where squads were being split and/or using more than two different types of aircraft.

Nef thanks for the  input.  The more than two aircraft thing puzzles me.   I can't remember that happening, or if it was a problem, (though if you want to prevent it then that's not a problem for me) and if the rule said just "No squad can be allocated more than two plane types" it would seem to fix it.

There is no need to stop smaller squads from also having two plane types if what you state above is what you actually want.

Trying to stop a preponderance of a single type though is a different issue and I believe can be dealt with simply and directly.  Don't beat around the bush.  Just say it.  "CO's may not allocate more than X% of one aircraft type in this scenario."  

It could easily be appended to each scenario and amended, if required, by the designer as necessary. It's clear.  No complications.  No doubts.

[Nefarious]

The incedence occured in Skernsks Russian Event, A small squad was split into numerous different aircraft just to meet the plane requirements of so many having to be flown. It was pretty much the basis of why the rule was implemented. FSO caters to many different player styles, some players enjoy Camraderie and the thrill of FSO and some play to win, and will manipulate the rules and settings to achieve victory.

Like I said, we'll look at it again, and bring your concerns up when we speak about it, Without input from players like you problems in design are often overlooked. Thanks for your concern.

[ghostdancer]

Yes, the incident in question happened in Skernsk's FSO event. No minimum or maximum numbers were assigned to each plane type as had been done in previous FSOs.

If a minimum and maximum number was assigned per plane type the incident would not have happened.

[ghostdancer]

I agree with Dantoo on this issue that the rule was not necessary. Since there were already procedures previously in place to handle this exact problem which had been used for an extensive time.

The problem that is being cited was based on the fact that no minimum number or a maximum numbers was defined for each plane type as had been done previously in FSOs.

If you simply say:

La5N = no min limit, max of 40
Boston IIIs = 10 min, no max limit
Yak9T = 10 min, no max limit
P40E = 10 min, no max limit

A CM completely avoids the issue of of a frame CiC deploying to many of one plane type or two little of another plane type by doing this. While preserving the planning flexibility for the CiC.

A CiC then could take a large squad and actually deploy it into three different plane types for a complete package mission.

i.e. 1/3rd in bombers, 1/3rd in fighters suited best for escort, and 1/3rd in say a supporting JABO role or in different fighters used as scouts for the mission package.

Using the above example

Yak9Ts are fast but not great escort planes, so deploy a few of scouts infront of the mission so that the bombers can try to skirt any opposition or are at least warn well in advance of incoming interceptors.

P40Es as the close escort (not La5Ns since they don't have the legs for a lengthy mission involving bombers).

And of course the bombers themselves.

This is the way it had been done and there were not such issues when a min and max number were define per aircraft.

The new rule basically does limit in two ways:

[list=1]

• No large squad will every fly special aircraft again. If only 5 ME262s assigned you can't give it to any squad except a 4-6 squad and even there you actually could be forcing the small 4-6 squad to split .. if they have a turn out of 8 (6+2) then 5 are in me262s and 3 are in what?
• Large squads are more likely to deployed in just large blocks one just one plane type.

Instead of saying deploy at least 8 JABOs and the rest provide escort and not worrying about what numbers a squad turns out the CO and CiC now do have to worry about the numbers since a large squad has to split exactly 50/50 by this rule.

Say a squad turns out 22 pilots. That would be 11 in buffs (say vals) and 11 in fighters. Now say the squad turns out 14 that is 7 and 7. That actually is a significant difference in this scenario. Before the CiC and squad CO had the capility to go 11 Vals and 3 escorts or maybe go lets got 10 Vals and 4 escorts.

As long as they made sure to meet the minimum number defined for the side for Vals by the CM.
[/list]

[TracerX]

Sounds good to me Ghostdancer.  Another item we might be missing is that the must use at least x of y plane types leaves the small squads with the odd plane type assignment all the time.  If you have to fill the requirement to field a plane type but would really rather assign a different type as the CIC, one of the small squads is going to get the assignment every time.  If we assign a minimum # of each plane, and let the assignments be made by the CIC how ever he wants to make them, then maybe the assignments will be more fairly distributed between big and little squads.

As another example, I would prefer to deploy ME262's in pairs to several different squads in the upcomming scenario.  Why not be able to give a 4-6 squad a pair of 262's too?

[ghostdancer]

You know I didn't even think of that. If you say you must field 4 out of 5 plane types and have no min / max number involved you are right. All you have to do is field one 4-6 squad to fullfill this require if say you have the following:

c.202
bf109F4
fw190A5
JU87
JU88

As a CiC I know that the c.202 is nowhere near an effictive fighter as the other two. The 190 and 109 I would deploy in numbers. Definitely would be deploying the JU88s because of ordinance load, better defensive armament than a JU87 and relative fast and durable.

So that means left with the decision of either a JU87 or c.202. Neither I would be real thrilled with but by the rules all I have to do is deploy one squad in either. So I would probably deploy one small squad in c.202s.

So you are right the small squads would get stuck with certain types of planes to full fill a 4 out of 5 planes must be used statement.

In addition a 4-6 squad actually has the range of a 2 - 8. So it could result in just 2 of a certain plane type used.

[BlkKnit]

not a fan of squad splitting regulations (as I have posted before).

Tried very hard to stay out of here.  The temptation got to me.

So,

50/50 is a rule I do not like at all. If a squad is willing to split, then why not in %'s that they prefer?

The size limit for spliting squads is also a problem IMO.  I think Dantoo and GD summed it up very well along with input from TracerX.

Just want to get my opinion stated for you, and so, there it is.  All from a CiC's point of view.

For what its worth.

[Nomde]

Here's my 2 cents, for what it's worth....

When setting up rides and missions for the squads, i'll keep to the "spirit" of the rules. I don't go looking for loopholes to exploit, rather i'll use what we have and try to make a fun event for all.

To have to sit down and write a rule for every possible permientation or exploit is neither fun or desirable, and I don't believe we'd be able to monitor it all. I think we as FSO's should take responsibilty in policing ourselves, and keep in mind there's something larger here then winning some frame. IMHO

[68falcon]

I want to thank all of you for your input.
Dantoo you have mail