FSO Rule adjustments

[Stoney74]

Originally posted by SLED
Oh my, here we go again. Where does it say "we will penalize for under minimums" in FSO?

SLED, he may be referencing my penalties enforced in the last two frames of OP Cerberus.  Not enough pilots showed for a few squads and the result was that the Allied side was under required numbers for the Spit I.

Kurt, I see that more as a function of the CIC planning and checking prior to takeoff.  If I'm CIC with a plane minimum or maximum in play for the frame, I don't hang my hat on assigning a squad with a commitment level of 17-21 on a 20 plane minimum, for example.  I'll hedge my numbers and maybe assign another squad the same plane.  Finally, they can do a numbers count before fields are open, and make sure they'll have the minimum number before everyone rolls.

[Kurt]

Originally posted by Stoney74
SLED, he may be referencing my penalties enforced in the last two frames of OP Cerberus.  Not enough pilots showed for a few squads and the result was that the Allied side was under required numbers for the Spit I.

Kurt, I see that more as a function of the CIC planning and checking prior to takeoff.  If I'm CIC with a plane minimum or maximum in play for the frame, I don't hang my hat on assigning a squad with a commitment level of 17-21 on a 20 plane minimum, for example.  I'll hedge my numbers and maybe assign another squad the same plane.  Finally, they can do a numbers count before fields are open, and make sure they'll have the minimum number before everyone rolls.

In the first paragraph you are dead on, that is exactly what I was referring too...

Paragraph two... We need to clarify a bit...

I increased numbers for my frame orders, I probably won't go under minimums on any type... However, in effect, I now am not dealing with a minimum of 20 am I?  Now I'm planning a minimum of 25ish allowing for failures by some squad that might let me down...

"If you want me to wear 15 pieces of flair, why is the minimum 13 pieces of flair?  Why not just tell me 15 pieces of flair?"

So, here are the hard facts for Frame 1 Okinawa Axis... I have (based on Minimums) 139 pilots.... I have 100 manditory aircraft (5 types at 20 each).

I have a varience of 39.... 39 pilots divided by 5 types is 7.8... 7.8 is 5.6% of my total pilots...

So on average if there is a 5.6% variance in attendence, I will recieve some penalty somewhere for a busted minimum...

Thats a pretty tight margin for error.

Of course, you're going to point out that its unlikely that I will be dealing with minimums... But the fact is that this rule forces me to plan for the worst case... And the worst case means that every squad shows up at minimums with some being below minimums... Right?  This is fun... Remember?  A good time.

Starting to make sense now? You gents talk about fun first, but these rules, they are not fun to work with... They are a serious pain in the ...  I can plan and plan and spend hours trying to meet this rule... But if Joe Jockstrap decides to bail on FSO, my team gets a kick in the chops.  Good fun!

So now, if you'll excuse my Caps, I'd like to make my final argument...

THE CIC CAN NOT CONTROL THE FINAL ATTENDENCE OF HIS FRAME AND SHOULD NOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FAILURE OF INDEPENDENT SQUADRONS.

The rule should apply to the orders that the CiC sends out... The 'side' should not be punished if they get assigned some irresponsible squadron that fails to attend.  As long as the orders meet the intent of the rule, then penalties should be waived.

Thats my whole point... I hope it makes better sense now.

[Sled]

Yes it does.


Thank you for clarifying Kurt. I was misunderstanding what you were talking about.

[Kurt]

Excellent...

Thanks for reading my rant!  

See ya friday!

[Sled]

I read them all

[Viper61]

To all of the CM's:

  I understand the intent of the rule change.  And I agree in giving it a chance to see how it is handled when "situations" arise.  I also trust the CM's to make fair calls as have been made in the past.

  I also agree with the ordnance change which would require a squad to drop ordnance of some type to count as an attack.  But I will tell you for the record I have watched the AK’s drop on an airfield and using machine guns only wipe out a base in a hurry.  That was an attack!!

  I don’t understand the rationale for the changes however?  I assume there has been a problem or protest?  From my prospective it all looked like it was running fine.  I hadn't seen any negative comments myself.

  I do occasionally see the comment or post in the buffers or in here stating that my squad saw no action.  It happens to all squads.  Sometimes it is do to poor or inexperienced leadership or just dumb luck.  But there is no squad that can say we never see any action.  The FSO is great for action.  So I hope the new rule change is not related to that issue.

  I will tell you that I don’t like the new rule change (H+60 Main Attack) however because it places restrictions into the planning of missions and their execution.  I for one use every trick that I can (within the rules) to gain the tactical advantage.  I almost always plan for late frame strikes.  I do so because I know very few squads or leaders have the will to stay and defend as they would rather go out hunting.  Also that extra time (late frame) allows the bombers a chance to approach from off angles (without fighter support) and to get to high altitudes.  This rule change will most likely stop missions like this.... most likely.

  The FSO is about squad planning and operational control during the battle.  Time restrictions take away from that.  I "believe" the new rule as written and enforced may or will cause head on clashes verses the out thinking and out flanking of your enemy.  I am concerned that this rule would force a more MA style of planning in which “might” overcomes “wit”.  In short instead of out flanking my enemy I will probably have to muscle my way through to the target which in most cases will cause excess losses.  These loses can tip scores especially when bomber formations (3) have a value of 45 points each.  Likewise as a defender knowing that my enemy is restricted, I can concentrate my defending forces in both location and altitude giving me the tactical advantage in most cases.

  I know that this rule change is not a knee jerk reaction or anything of the sort.  And I am quiet sure that all of the CM's bounced this around before the change.  And I also believe in allowing and making the "system" work.  So let’s give it try.  But please retain the FSO and what it is or should be which is: squad operations where planning, leadership and control mean more that shear might.  If I wanted that I would post missions in the MA and get the same effect.  

  Stoney's comment about real world bombing altitudes used by the AXIS vs. the ALLIES.  He is correct of course.  However I disagree in having to follow historical methods to the "T" or being forced into following that because of a "time period" being imposed which doesn’t allow bombers to climb as high as they can or take a route that avoids contact.  Historical accuracy in the FSO should only be a guide and not the rule.  If it becomes the rule then no one will want to fly the AXIS side.  We all know that the AXIS side lost and I don’t need a history lesson.

  The FSO should be about even sides and even objectives in a historical setting and period of the war.  It doesn’t bother me if the AXIS side wins the Battle of Britain or if the ALLIES lose every CV at Midway.  So I ask that for the sake of the game and its fun to many that the pursuit of Historical Accuracy doesn’t go to far.  And when rules are written that effect how high a bomber can go or the direction it has to take because of a time period the historical accuracy has gone too far in my opinion.  Stoney I may have taken your comment above out of context.  But it sounds like you support this rule change to impose more historical accuracy in the scenarios?

  To all of the CM’s you have a tough job that I don’t want, I salute all of your efforts.    Just my 2 cents.

Viper 61
325th VFG

[Sled]

First off Viper thanks for your kind words.

Originally posted by Viper61

  I will tell you that I don’t like the new rule change (H+60 Main Attack) however because it places restrictions into the planning of missions and their execution.  I for one use every trick that I can (within the rules) to gain the tactical advantage.  I almost always plan for late frame strikes.  I do so because I know very few squads or leaders have the will to stay and defend as they would rather go out hunting.  Also that extra time (late frame) allows the bombers a chance to approach from off angles (without fighter support) and to get to high altitudes.  This rule change will most likely stop missions like this.... most likely.

Quite honestly Viper, that is what we are trying to prevent. We don't want a large group of 17's coming into a target at T+90, at 35K, flattening the target with no resistance.

And when that does happen in FSO (many times in the past) We hear about it.


Believe it or not, we didn't really change the T+60 rule, we just put into writing what has always been, what we felt made for a good event.

As for time constraints, FSO by it's very nature is time constrained. 2 hours that's it. We want the bulk of action to be under way by 60 min. That gives 1 hour for second strikes and RTB.

Also using your example Viper, a group of 17's (or 24's) can travel about 175mi (7 sectors) in an hour, more if you go in lower. Most of the targets that need to be attacked in an FSO are around 4-5 sectors (100-125mi) away from the base of launch. Most of the time you have time to come in from different directions.  and certainly many different Altitudes. But about 28K is as high as you are going to get. That is intentional.

You are correct in that we need to give these new rules some time and try them out. The CM team has never been afraid to make adjustments if necessary.

[Stoney74]

Hope to explain some of this to you...

[Stoney74]

Hope to explain some of this to you as well...

[WxMan]

Originally posted by SLED

Believe it or not, we didn't really change the T+60 rule, we just put into writing what has always been, what we felt made for a good event.

It is a significant change. If you do a search on the T+60 rule you will find that the intent of the rule was to insure that all targets saw some type of contact from an opposing squad during the first hour. No more no less.

Your addendum to the rule: (a) requires that ordnance is used before T+60.
(b) specifies the squad size and type of attack on a target.

This is huge, as far as requirements. True, many CiC's in the past including me have planned for and executed co-ordinated attacks that would match the new rules, but it's never what you refer to as "what has always been". Prior to this rule adjustment, there was always options for distant or difficult targets and CiC's had some leeway in stratagey.

In essence because of the new restrictions, you will be dictating the direction, type and timing of an attack on most targets. Effectively eliminating most of the offensive and defensive strategy.

[Kurt]

The planes minimums rule is intended to be a mission planning rule, however, it is being enforced as an attendence rule.

I feel pretty strongly that as long as the CiC planned in good faith with the rule then he should not be punished if actual attendence works against him.

It should be noted that I actually like the rule of minimums... I just think its getting enforced incorrectly.

And on that topic, I think the T+60 rule has the same flaw... As long as the CiC made a reasonable effort to attack the target with a 'squad sized' force, then you shouldn't penalize the team if attendence (or a really good defense plan by the enemy) prevent that force from attacking in the expected numbers.

[Nefarious]

The FSO penalty of 10 points has been lifted due to the positive arguments we've seen here.

But... Should a problem ever arise by not following the minimum requirements (e.g. 100+ La5 Nightmare) the squad/s involved will be removed from FSO.

[Kurt]

Now you're cookin'...Punish the guys who abuse the system!

Thanks for reading along, and thanks for considering the positions we have presented.