8 Objectives too many?

[Virage]

I think 8 objectives spreads the fight out too thin.  The large map distances also contribute I realize.

I'm sure 8 objectives also makes for a CIC headache.

What do you think the 'optimum' number of objectives should be?

[RSLQK186]

Three per side has worked well in the past, but (I think) we are running with numbers about 20% higher than when I started flying FSO a few years ago. On a tighter map 4 per could be fun. Did not make it last night so have no take on this settup.

[skernsk]

Numbers plays a big part in selecting your objectives.  However this large map makes it even tougher to fine tune.  

I had a good time last night even though the first hour was slow for us.

[8903]

11 of my 20 some guys made it through, and we hit the objective. Imagine if all my guys made it through. The city would have been at 0%. 8 being to many objectives, I don't think so. I think its good as it is.

[RATTFINK]

Originally posted by Virage
What do you think the 'optimum' number of objectives should be?

[SIZE=10]The more, the merrier!! [/SIZE]


Ratt's 2cents brought to you by The Bad Guys & the letter F for F*** Yeah!!

[daddog]

Eight can be too many if they are spread out. Just depends on how they are placed.

One of the many important factors (IMHO) an Admin CM has to consider is that all squads see action. A point I have debated with others over the years, but one that I think has led to the success of FSO. An Admin CM might place 2 or 3 targets in the same sector or nearly so. They would be grouped together in other words. Look at the example map below.



In the south you can see three targets grouped together, (Target A). That could be three objectives and would be assigned multiple squads to attack or defend it. Now look up north at a single objective, (Target B). It is likely that would be only assigned a single squad to attack it and defend it. The problem some run into with objectives is not so much the number of targets, but how they are placed. Single targets spread out over a wide area can open the door to problems that multiple closely placed targets will not.

If a single squad was assigned to attack Target B (and each of the other green targets) and a single squad to defend you could have the following problems:
-   Attacking squad is much larger than the defending squad.
-   Defending squad is much larger than the attacking squad.
-   One squad is a no-show and a squad does not see any action.
-   Action is over early and the defending squad does not have the time or fuel to reach another area of enemy activity.

With Target A you would obviously have several squads assigned and involved in the area and the other yellow areas noted on the map. They would all most likely see action, low high, and from many different directions. Now I am not saying that going with several single targets is a poor way, but it does have its down side. Also going with several targets in a close proximity has a down side, but I am not going to get into that.

A simple formula that Admin CM’s use is taking the number of FSO participants (about 260) and divide it by the number of targets. If you divide 260 by 8 you get about 33 pilots for each target. If you have only 4 targets you get about 65 players per target. Too many IMHO. This is considered by the Admin CM’s along with the placement of the objectives. Or at least should be. If an Admin CM looks at the big picture and all the inherent problems with the plane set, terrain, balance of numbers, target placement and their location, they often can design a solid event for everyone to enjoy.

[Drano]

Didn't much matter to me whether it was 6 or 8 or 10 really. Initially I thought it was a lot.  After reading the whole objectives page and the synopsis of the event it was clear to me that being the Frame 1 CO I would have to weigh my strategy more heavily on the defense of the jet fields pretty much above all else. If not I cripple my side's use of jets in future frames. Not hangin that on me! Its all Drano's fault enough!

As a frame CO you get to decide what's a priority and what's not. You have objectives yeah. And you have to attack yes. You decide where you want your defenders and attackers arranged and what numbers to use where. I saw it as a no-brainer that I needed to save the jet fields first and foremost and anything else I could get out of the frame was a bonus. Consequently, the jet fields were defended more heavily than anywhere else. The city (ton of points to grab and densely packed together too) next and the third field not so much. The third field, A22, was the most vulnerable anyway insofar as distance and routing for the allies so I figured it'd get hit hard--but in respect to the event it wasn't as important as the other fields were. It was IMO fairly expendable. I put two large squads there to defend anyway.

My attack plan only called for Jabo strikes other than the 234s which I guess I kinda had to use as the friggin event's named after them LOL. I only initially wanted the attackers to make a single pass and get back home to be on defense. That was why I used FW's to attack the city instead of Ju88s which I would normally have used on a city sized target.

As the frame went on there was time. A lot of my Arados were returning from their strikes on 9 and 66 along with a lot of FWs from the city. My 110s got snuffed down south at 48. As the initial allied attacks were pretty much beaten back I sent the remaining attackers back for a second strike on their targets figuring anything they got would be great. The Arados got in but only 1 got out. The FW's got in a few less got out the second time.

But at the end of the frame my idea of defending the jet fields won the day as they weren't hardly touched. Someone did drop on 53 but only hit the tower.

And the numbers remained pretty much even thoughout most of the frame after an intial axis advantage. I think that shows it was a well fought frame and the number of objectives were irrelevant.


My two cents

Drano

[daddog]

I could not disagree more Drano. I think the number of objectives is very relevant to a design as is their placement, obviously from my post above.

I also want to point out my above post was not critical of Nomde's design. I was just trying to answer Virage's question. I think Nomde did a find job and has a good design.

[Drano]

Didn't really see any sort of a problem insofar as balance or playablility in this particular frame tho. Numbers stayed relatively equal from early on in the frame right to the end. I do hear you tho and I think my saying 10 wouldn't be a problem would be a bit of a stretch. The number of objectives would certainly be limited by number of players.

There were 8 objectives in this frame and  good action around all of them for a fair ammount of the frame other than at A48 and that wasn't so much a design or planning problem as it was an attendance problem. The squad I assigned to hit there had a lot of no shows last night and consequently they did little damage. I'm sure the defenders there were bored to tears. Sorry about that but we've all been there.

If anything there seemed to be a time issue with distances. From my point of view, making a 2nd strike on the targets seemed impractical for the allies as time went on. No way they could have hit the city or A49 and get back in time. A22 was the only viable target for them which is why I think it took some more damage right before end frame. They hit it because they could. Talk about kickin a dead horse tho! Hitting 53 might have been a possibility in theory but it was under some serious lockdown conditions. Was nothin gettin to there let alone gettin back. I moved every available fighter to there with about 40 mins left.

In this particular event you have the two jet fields being a target I assume that's going to be for each frame so there's 2 fields right there that the allies know that they have to hit. If you only had 3 targets instead of 4, and say one of them was a city or other strat, which two do you think might get totally dogpiled and what one might be pretty much ignored? Now you have a gameplay issue. So the fourth target is a wild card and forces the other side to make a choice. In this case the allies chose to smoke A22 hoping that it was one of our jet fields which thankfully it wasn't. So see in this particular case the 3 targets wouldn't work, ya gotta have 4. You couldn't make it so there was only 1 jet field as you have 2 jet types to use and that's too many planes to take away from the axis side especially with all the allied hot rods if that field gets smoked and kinda defeats the purpose of an event named after the Ar234 if there were none.

Unlike the other events where each target is pretty much worth X number of points and that's all you have, this other added "value" to certain targets in this one has to be factored into your planning strategy and I think Nomde's done a good job of adding that extra wrinkle. I liked it. Just sayin.

Drano

[daddog]

I agree with much of what you said. Your focus is about this particular frame. If I sounded like I was being critical that was not my intention. I was not being critical of Axis orders, Allied orders, or the CM’s objectives. My post was about the over all designs of FSO’s and the considerations of choosing 4, 6, 8 or 10 targets and trying to educate Virage on FSO designs and the number of targets.

As I said before Virage, 8 targets may or may not be too many. Just depends on how they are spread out, the number of players, the plane set, terrain, etc. Many factors to consider.

[Virage]

My reason for posting was to start a design discussion for future FSO's and I was curious what opinions would be concerning the number of objectives.  Maybe there is a design 'sweet spot' we can uncover through past experience.

Daddog:  I see that I am walking on a well beaten path here.  Your points are well taken.   I guess we should be talking about Hotspots instead of individual objectives, although more objectives does = more work for the CIC.

Drano:  I don't consider the number of objectives to be a balance issue.  In a nutshell: many objectives spread out over a wide area = less action = less fun.  Few objectives over a small area = MA  

Maybe I should of asked, "Based on prior FSOs, what number of Hotspots and what size map works best?"

Imo 4-6 Hotspots in a 300X300 mile zone works best for the ~275 pilots currently participating.  Thats ~50 pilots for both sides in 1 area.  

I think most would agree that a perfect FSO would include the initial clash to occur well within T+60, with the opportunity for action in the second hour.

BTW, although Blitz has made me think about these questions,I am not trying to change the current FSO tour and think Nomde put together an interesting scenario that should be allowed to run its course.

[Virage]

Oops.. I meant a 150x150 mile zone.  not a 300X300.

[RDRTrash]

I think that having more targets to choose from than you can attack is not a bad thing, but a good thing; it means that you have to CHOOSE which ones you will attack, which means the defender also must CHOOSE which ones he will defend.  When you only have 3 targets, and the defender knows what your 3 targets are, there is no mystery of "if" you will attack the target, just a "when".  

If side "A" has 7 targets, and side "B" has 7 targets, then the way the math of which side does better in FSO works out.  If side "A" has 8 targets, and side "B" has only 6 targets, then side "A" has a disadvantage IMO.

Stuff to think about.  Either way, I love playing in FSO, Thanks FSO CMs !!!

[daddog]

I think that having more targets to choose from than you can attack is not a bad thing, but a good thing; it means that you have to CHOOSE which ones you will attack, which means the defender also must CHOOSE which ones he will defend. When you only have 3 targets, and the defender knows what your 3 targets are, there is no mystery of "if" you will attack the target, just a "when".

That is a common misconception. Unknown targets should only be applied to Scenarios, the cream of the crop when it comes to events. One of the successes of FSO is that 95% of the time everyone sees action. I know it sounds boring when both sides know what targets will be attacked and what targets need to be defended. Not only that but everyone knows it must be in the first 60 minutes. Yet, this has led to the success of FSO. Even with that information on the table there is enough variables to keep everyone guessing and on their toes each frame. For example many of the unknown variables are:
-   Level bombing (high alt, mid alt, or low alt)
-   What direction will the attack come from (north, south, east, or west)
-   What altitude
-   Specific time
-   What kind of escort if any
-   Will fighters sweep ahead
-   Clouds and visibility
-   Dive bombing or Jabo attacks
All those above and you still have the variables of how many enemy will attack or be defending and what type of aircraft they will be in.

The only exception to having unknown targets IMHO is when they are closely grouped within the same sector. For example the map I posted above, the three targets in “A” could be listed as a target to attack and defend. Order’s could be given to defend all three, but you don’t know which three would be attacked. If someone was to list all the green targets in the map above as potential targets you could have several squads flying around for two hours and never see any action. That will kill FSO faster than anything I can think of.

[Drano]

Originally posted by daddog
If someone was to list all the green targets in the map above as potential targets you could have several squads flying around for two hours and never see any action. That will kill FSO faster than anything I can think of.

Kinda sums it all up. You just couldn't have a multitude of "potential" targets like that in a FSO as there just aren't enough players involved to cover them. While it'd be cool if we did I wouldn't want to be the guy writing the orders for that one in a day or two hehe.

Drano