My opinion on how things got confused in Friday night's frame

[Drano]

I think part of the problem was in having a "fighter sweep" as an "objective". It really doesn't fit the bill as an objective IMO like "attack X" or "defend Y" does. Therefore, its a bit confusing to plan either for or against. Seems a no brainer you'd have to give an attack or defense--where you know there will be opposition that has to be dealt with--much greater weight than a fighter sweep where there *might* be some opposition and I think that's exactly what happened in each frame.

For example:

In frame 1 I was axis CO and didn't send anyone at all on the fighter sweep toward P105 directly as I had to also "defend bases A36 and A38 from enemy attack". The fighter sweep read to me more like a suggestion in order to locate the British destroyer group I was to attack than part of what I actually needed to do in order to win the frame so I blew it off. I simply sent a few 109 scouts ahead of my Ju88 anti-shipping strike. The area to search was fairly small.

It just so happened that the guys on patrol NNW of A36 ran into RAF fighters around A44 and mixed it up with them there. I was totally confused why A36 didn't get attacked other than a token de-acking Spit9. I expected Bostons any minute and they never came. The fight never came much closer than the outskirts of A44.

I was again a bit confused when A38 didn't get hit, although the guys I had on station there did find a group of escorted TBMs North of there and destroyed that attack out over the channel. At the time that kinda explained that at least to me. Found out after the frame that first attack was actually destined for our destroyer group and not A38 at all. That destroyer group was hit by a secondary attack of TBMs a bit later.

In that frame I let the guys that were defending 36 and 38 head out to clean up the British destroyer group and also A20(my two objectives to attack) after the first hour. Seems I had planned to defend against an attack on two of my bases that were never to be attacked.

Drano

[Nefarious]

This is a perfect example, of why it didnt work.

In frame 1 I was axis CO and didn't send anyone at all on the fighter sweep toward P105 directly as I had to also "defend bases A36 and A38 from enemy attack". The fighter sweep read to me more like a suggestion in order to locate the British destroyer group I was to attack than part of what I actually needed to do in order to win the frame so I blew it off. I simply sent a few 109 scouts ahead of my Ju88 anti-shipping strike. The area to search was fairly small.

In the end its taught me a valuble lesson about Fighter Sweeps and there role in FSO.

I tried to work the fighter sweep in as a extra addition to the Fog of War we have already in place during FSO. Each side was supposed to Sweep and attack one field each. The other side was told to expect attacks at both bases.

Like I said in other posts, In some instaces it worked. In some instances it didn't. Effectively what happened is both sides in both frames failed to assign them with a very large role. But both sides assigned the defense of the Sweeped fields, with more. So then you have pilots that saw little or no action, Because they may have never made it to target, or perhaps they intentionally avoided it, or they may have (as in your case) never recieved an order to do so.

CM's objectives must be clear and concise, And the fog of war has to be toned down so far that it pleases everyone. From some of the oppinions and AAR's I can tell that all I did was cause confusion, and ruin some people's Friday Night, and for all that I apologize, Sorry.

[Hornet33]

Maybe I'm losing touch with the purpose of FSO, but isn't the "fog of war" a very real thing.

I thought the whole idea behind FSO was to try and create the most realistic battle scenario as possible within the limits of the game.

Now I know that in real life, if I can complete my mission without even seeing the enemy i.e. confuse the enemy to the point he's looking away from where I'm really at, then my mission is accomplished.

So here is my real question. Should the people creating the orders try and think outside the box? Come up with a plan that allows their pilots to get in and out without getting shot at and complete their mission? OR Send them straight into a meat grinder 20 minutes into the frame so everyone can have a good old fashioned furball that makes everyone happy that they "saw some action"?

As far as the fighter sweep idea goes, as a tactic it's valid. Send out a group of fighters with orders to fly to this area and then engage anything you see. The idea being to reduce or eliminate the enemy's ability to interfere with your other missions.

I don't know, it just seems that the mentality is getting away from real tactics and strategy and leaning more towards, everyone up ASAP and head to the same spot so we can all try and kill each other. So what if a squad didn't see any action during 1 frame. Thats real life, and in real life stuff happens. Get over it, and no one should have to say their sorry because of it.

My two cents for what it's worth

[Drano]

Short of it is something like a fighter sweep should be something the CO should decide on doing or not and where as part of his strategy in order to achieve an objective not an objective in and of itself.

Drano

[Skyfoxx]

I think Hornet33 makes a very good point.

[Casper1]

Hornet33 once again takes the cake.  nice post.

[Dux]

IMO, Fog of War is just like Murphy's Law... it's going to happen whether you plan it or not. If you plan it, it will never go the way you planned. Just let it happen on it's own.

[Nifty]

*shrugs* I think Nef had a really good idea with fighter sweep objectives. It would promote the part of the game that's the most fun, and that's actual air to air combat. It's more fun for the objective to be "kill the other guy!" instead of "kill the static building", in my opinion. Personally, I cringe when we have a buff run or even a JABO run as our objective. It's wrong in terms of the team objective, but on a JABO run my favorite command from my lead is "drop ord and engage the enemy!"

So an objective that's purpose from a game standpoint is all about the dogfight is an objective that's high on my list!  

The purpose of a fighter sweep was to get the enemy to up their interceptors so you could engage them without worrying about protecting your buffs in the process.  The more interceptors you knock down today means less interceptors to deal with when you send your buffs in tomorrow. Historically, that's a good and measurable thing.  Obviously from an Squad Ops standpoint, it's not measurable or "effective", since all the squads somehow are alive the next frame with perfectly functioning aircraft.  

[Drano]

But Nifty the point of FSOs and other events is to provide an alternative style of gameplay to the MA which is pretty much an engage the enemy all the time hamster wheel. The events are supposed to be geared toward a little bit of "strategery" and misdirection. As we all know the furballs still happen but there's usually more of a method to that madness than in the MA.

Filed under potayto-pohtahto I personally like the change of pace of the bomber or jabo missions where there's co-ordination of several units other than ours maybe in order to achieve an objective. As Hannibal Smith used to say, .." I just live it when a plan comes together!"

This is the reason when I have time to fly (which is increasingly rare in recent months) I always make it a point to show up for the events and can pretty much take or leave the MA.

Drano

[FiLtH]

Fog of war is ok for main events where strategy comes into play, but for FSOs Id prefer as much combat and as little sneaking around as possible. People show up fridays to do some fighting. If we plan to accomplish missions while avoiding combat losses, it loses some of its appeal to me.

[Nifty]

Originally posted by Drano

/snip
Filed under potayto-pohtahto I personally like the change of pace of the bomber or jabo missions where there's co-ordination of several units other than ours maybe in order to achieve an objective. As Hannibal Smith used to say, .." I just live it when a plan comes together!"
Drano

The objectives given by Nefarious called for both a fighter sweep and an actual field attack (in addition to other objectives like attacking a fleet and defending targets). Both your preference and my preference were being catered to in the same frame of an event. I see nothing wrong with that. I do not want to remove the strategy or coordination elements from the FSO, nor would I ever advocate removal of JABO and bomber missions from the FSO.  

All I was saying is that I welcomed the addition of the fighter sweep objective as a good thing, and a fun one to boot!

!

[96Delta]

I tend to agree with Hornet on this.

We found ourselves getting bored after
our first engagement.  It soon began to
dawn on us that there would be no axis
followup effort.   When that became clear
to the allied CiC we were reassigned
to hit a target.

This 'fog of war' should be understood as
an opportunity for a little creativity and decision-making
flexibility on the part of the country commander.

If a squad flies CAP over a field for 30 minutes with
no contact, maybe the country commander should
provide them with a new mission that is responsive
to actual battle developments.

What I am saying is that the more rigid you
make things and the more you reduce the
fog of war, the more you hinder a commander
from exercising some in-game discretionary tactics
and the less imaginative the battle will be.

Like a chess game, each move has a potential
countermove.  If we all know what the moves will
be in advance, what fun is the game?  Doesn't it
just begin to erode into an MA arcade style of play?

The FSO is supposed to be an alternative to the
MA slugfest.  Its supposed to have tactics, strategy
and coordination.  Its supposed to be a recreation
of a historical event or experience.  To want to
just get into a fight as soon as possible misses the
whole point and purpose of the FSO, as far as I understand it.

What attarcted me and the rest of my squad to this
format is its depth and intelligence.  Tactics, strategy,
adaptation, survival, coordination...all add levels
of enjoyment not available in the MA.  The 'fight'
in the FSO is just one ingredient, albeit a fun one,
in a very satisfying online gaming experience.

Oh well, JMHO,

David "96Delta"

[skernsk]

Some interesting points have been brought up.  The short of it is we try and create objectives and design the frame so that ALL squads will see action of some type.

Guys like Hornet (in my opinion) are the minority, most will not be happy unless they get into the fighting.  FSO players enjoy the event, but not if it means flying around an empty sky for two hours.  Based on that we try to create objectives to maximize the activity for everyone.

Within the first hour the objectives should be hit since one or more squads would have been patrolling over the target looking for the attack.  That rule was added because of complaints of boredom, players were simply not willing to fly around for so long without something happening.

It is not easy to find the balance in the objectives.  We are limited to planes used and targets on the terrains.  Not to mention what the Frame CO decides to do in terms of planning.

[Nefarious]

Skernsk is right, Every player needs to see action. Some people are entertained just by the squad tactics, and the thrill of FSO. Others can only be entertained by actual Air Combat, seeing the enemy and killing them.

Ive been in the situation where I was defending a field in FSO plenty of times, and not seen action, or brief spurts of action but still not firing any rounds. Personally its not fun for me, but in the end, I set my ride down, maybe upset about it, but If I landed my crate and my wingman landed his, thats all i need.

I pretty much guaranteed action for the "Sweepers", as long as they flew to the target and met the "Defenders". I say "Pretty Much" because in FSO anything can happen. As we see every Friday, there are variable outcomes that are all caused by different reasons and  the more you thicken the Fog of War, the more different outcomes you will find.

There needs to be a middle of road, to keep the mystery and intrigue and to ensure everyone for any reason they play too have a good time.

[daddog]

Maybe I'm losing touch with the purpose of FSO, but isn't the "fog of war" a very real thing.

Hornet the purpose of Friday Squad Ops since its conception is for players to engage the enemy in historical settings with efforts to make the affair as balanced as possible so as many as possible will enjoy the frame.
 
What you and others may not realize is that players and squads as a whole are very intolerant about the lack of action in a two hour weekly event. Nothing, and I mean nothing will kill an event, any event, sooner than the lack of action.
 
The only reason Squad Operations has developed into the most popular event in Aces High to the point it even surpasses the Scenarios is the fact that we cater to squads who, (to a great degree) see action week after week in a balanced and historical setting.
 
The FOG of war some of you refer to must be applied with trepidation in Squad Operations. Any time you add an element into FSO that increases the chance some players may see little or no action you subtract from the over all enjoyment of the event. Players that don’t enjoy events don’t attend events.
 
Currently FSO has thrived on the inherent design FOG of war which includes, but it not limited to:
-         Not knowing what enemy aircraft they will encounter
-         Not knowing how many enemy aircraft they will encounter
-         Not knowing what direction the enemy will come
-         Not knowing what alt the enemy will come
-         Not knowing if the enemy will attack in waves
-         Not knowing if the enemy will incorporate diversions
-         Not knowing if they will JABO or level bomb
-         Not knowing if there will be escorts or how many
-         Not knowing who is behind the stick you are engaging
 
All this FOG is implemented yet still providing guaranteed, (or nearly so) action for all squads and players involved. There are only 3 reasons players might not see action if the FSO design is good. Two of the reasons involve management prior to the event and one reason during the event.
 
1-     No show by a squad.
Little CM’s can do about a squad that does not show up for a FSO frame except to warn them and then remove them if the do it a 2nd time.
 
2-     Frame C.O. ignores/disobeys orders or misinterprets orders.
Frame C.O.’s who make a mistake in their orders are not always caught in time due to the real life time constraints on CM’s who may not have time to review the orders.
 
3-     A squad is intercepted and destroyed before they reach their objective.
Last but not least, sometimes things just go bad and a squad or plan is shredded before they are able to reach their target. It sucks but at least they saw some action.
 
FSO is popular because the players enjoy themselves, but be careful what you wish for. The FOG of war some of you take lightly, (or want to see more of) can quickly and unsympathetically take all the fun out of an event including Friday Squad Operations. IMHO we have struck on a formula that works, and has for years.  Why mess with it?