FSO Issue

[AKKaz]

Originally posted by humble
I flew FSO when I was in the AK's (a few yrs ago) and I fly them when I can now. I've been here since Beta...FSO is just fine. Now from what I can see your just spewing some venom for some reason...is it maybe that your one of the guys who liked to "Game the game"? I'm not trying to be confrontational but the only rule changes I have seen are designed to reign in CiC's who got too "cute" and violated the intent of the design.

Humble..... sry, just using your post to to help in framing my comment, not using it for a rebuttal item

I don't know about that.......... it can be interpreted in many different ways on the current rules or previous ones before that, depending on how you veiw them and from what angle of perspective.

From a planning standpoint, a few of them complicate things, on the other hand it may make some factors easier for those that more simply in the strategic lines of thought. I have posted some concerns in the past on a few items, but will leave that thought train out of my post for this reply.

Either way, I remember that most "bending" came in the mistyping/miscommunication or omiting items in the inital setup and/or orders, I could be wrong.  Every FSO I have flown in (about 90% I'd say) can be bent/twisted in one way or the other.  In the past it was mainly banked for the side CIC's and mission planners stay within the spirit of the game.  But as with all aspects of AH, time changes.  It is extremely hard to keep the so called "MA mentality" out of all aspects of AH.  As all have noticed the continual threads in the general forum about this subject, game play has changed throughout all areas of Aces High and so has the play mentality.

Whether some for good and/or some for bad, it has changed.  I'm not saying in has went downhill, but I can at least conceed that from MGD's standpoint of a period of time absence that he would see a more drastic change. Taking a moment and looking from outside the box, I will say that he makes a few good points.  As severe as he has seemed to state, I don't think so, but things have changed some.

It would be like seeing someone you don't see every day after 2 years..... you would notice a more drastic change than someone that was there every day. Good or bad?, maybe neither...... everyone makes there own call on that.

[ROC]

06-28-2001

This is when TOD, now FSO, was designed.  On this particular date, the subject of a CO serving one week was solidified for the reasons of time.  It was too much work for a single CO to run a solid 3 weeks of orders.  It was well discussed, and a very significant part of the original design.

The CiC issue is a big one. With three CiC's for every FSO there is a great loss of tactical responsibility. We seem to have adopted the "leave the next guy" the problems way of thinking.
If thats the way we are going that's cool we can play it frame to frame but that delete's the basis the FSO was based on.

As and end result the the FSO has been cheapened by that much more.

Based on the Facts of what I wrote, I am curious as to how you came to this conclusion?  We seem to have adopted what? If that's the way we are going?  That's the way it's been from the onset.  How can it be cheapened that much more by doing it the way it's always been done, for the past 6 1/2 years?

You really need to check your facts before you try and create an issue that doesn't exist.  

The only reason I opted to chime in here publicly is that some people might take you seriously, and you are making some awful mistakes here MGD.  Of all people, being a former CM and having access to all the history of the event, I am stunned beyond belief at some of the wholly incorrect assessments you are presenting.

[humble]

Kaz...

I dont disagree that everything changes or that FSO is static, however from my view the change has been fairly minimal. Now that might come from the fact that both the AK's and USMC/71 are well organized and normally have consistant turn out...so that might insulate me from changes more obvious to others. To me its always been the reality that sometimes your the Bat but others your stuck being the ball. Over time it all seems to even out and on those occasions you draw the short straw and slog thru the satisfaction is the greatest...

BTW hope all is well with everyone over in the land of pink fairy dust (WoW)

[TracerX]

Originally posted by humble
My 1st frame "back" we had B5N's and our escort got overwelmed. The opposing strike force pickled its ords and bounced us in their TBM's. We still got thru and sunk the cruiser and a good part of the escort (no CV in task group). Had a blast, was in a burning B5N with about zero chance of living long enough for a proper drop so had to "lob bomb" and caught just enugh of the cruiser to sink her (had been hit multiple times already). Ask the guys from VT-8 about plane choice and second lives. The "target planes" have just as much reason to show up as anyone else. In fact the target planes normally decide the outcome and the battle is between both sides "hero's" and the ability of the target to get the mail home.

That one brings back memories Snaphook.  I will remember that FSO for a long time.  Great job on that CV.  To get the job done even when everything falls apart is part of what makes FSO so fun.  You never know what to expect.  

I think the rules are carefully cosicered to make sure they don't have a straight jacket effect, yet preserve the freedom and enjoyment that people have come to expect from FSO.  I can easily suggest that without the addition of any new rules the FSO experience would be dramatically different than we have nostalgically remembered it, and far different than what it currently is considering how much the game environment and community has changed overall.

[humble]

Was certainly an "interesting" welcome back...

I also think it pointed out some of the issues the CM's deal with. Going from memory (and not intending to reopen any "issues") the opposing GIC (guy in charge) for that particular tasked order decided to pickle his ords and attack the B5N's even though he had both a fighter escort with him and there was another group tasked to protect the enemy "fleet". So he effected his sides mission goals, the flight tasked with defending that mission and his own sides defensive CAP. I think since he was mixed in with us the enemy CAP split between us and shiftys group (our escort). So while it hurt us loss wise it created a situation where the 880 guys had 3 enemy flights of fighters tied up in the confusion with not one really tasked on us since 1/2 of us were burning anyway. His reasoningwas he had been "discovered" and it was useless to slog on to target??

I was tweaked at the time since I didnt think the penalties were in place. IRL the loss of the task group would have been a serious blow, combined with the missed chance to strike a counterblow it should have created a "win" for us right there on that aspect of the score. The points for the loss of most of our planes and shiftys offeset our score on the TG and since they suffered few losses they actually "won" our little fracus even though they totally aborted there mission.

The ability you and sled had to manage the mission, make good choices among universally bad options at least let us complete the mission and let a few of us live to tell the tail. My biggest issue is that good leadership like that isnt always rewarded. I think that ideally you'd have a "Score modifier" of some type that acts as an equalizer. The more success the mission has the less damage score the unit suffers for losses. At the same time a failed attack inflated the opposing damage score. After all "acceptable losses" are often viewed in relation to tangible gains. So in that scenario our success should have negated much of thier score and their failure to press any attack should have magnified our score for the losses they did suffer...

This is the type of "problem" thats led to the various changes (from my understanding). Its simply guys with a MA attitude in FSO (and in that sense I agree with MGD)...but dont blame the rules for that blame the squad CO's that allow it...

[Imoutfishing]

See Rule #5

[ROC]

Daddog, show the man.

[daddog]

The below quote is from a thread I started in the private CM BB on 6/23/01 that was the rough draft of FSO. The quote below is from fd ski who was very involved in the design of FSO and in that thread he wrote…

I'm fine with all of them except number 3.
CO'ing an event, even with missions and such, is an extreemly tasking execise and leads people to burn out quickly. it turns into 3 weeks of writing e-mails and pouring over the plans and targets.

From my S3 exeperiance, i would stronly recommend doing "one per week" CO as it will lead to much more fun for COs without killing their free time for more then a week.

Other then that, it looks good.

The following CM’s participated in this particular thread.
daddog
ghosth
banana
fd ski
Rojo
Rocket

In this lengthy thread above (of which I have only posted a small part) fd ski and I were going back and forth about my FSO design. One of the points I conceded to his experience in S3’s was about the same CiC’s running three frames in a row. It is something I wanted, but fd ski did not agree with. We (the CM’s) decided on having a different CiC for each frame due to fd skis experience in that matter. It was a good decision 6 ½ years ago and still is.

Now to quote you MGD.

The CiC issue is a big one. With three CiC's for every FSO there is a great loss of tactical responsibility. We seem to have adopted the "leave the next guy" the problems way of thinking.

If thats the way we are going that's cool we can play it frame to frame but that delete's the basis the FSO was based on.

As and end result the the FSO has been cheapened by that much more.

As everyone can see above your conceptions and or statements of what FSO is based on are completely false. From the beginning we adopted to have a different CiC every frame.

Your perception that we have adopted “leave it to the next guy” is also false. CM’s do not adopt attitudes that players or C.O.’s have. On the whole C.O.’s have been very responsible over the years and that has been a large part of the FSO success.

MGD you also said.

Give me a guy that flew two years ago that claims FSO's are the same as they once were... I just might take his word but that will not happen. The game has changed during this time.

There are a ton of you guy's out there who flew two years ago but you better have CiC'ed a frame before you pony up So please don't post unless you have as it just would not matter over all.

Not that you will take me at my word, but it would be silly to say that FSO has not changed. As a matter of fact it has changed an for the better IMHO. I think I can safely say that I have had my fingers on the pulse of this event more than any other.

I might add that anyone who has flown in FSO is welcome to post their thoughts or respond to anyone who does. You don’t have to be a CiC to have valid opinions. FSO is better than it was years ago. Sure we make mistakes, have poor designs, but if I have anything to do with it, it will continue to grow and change for the better.

Lastly you said MGD

Again take it at face value please. It's a personal evaluation and for the few that can compaire the FSO of the past & now are qualified to judge.

I will consider myself one of the few since you have of yourself, though I am not sure why since you had nothing to do with its design. Your welcome to your personal evaluations, but your twisting of facts and out right false statements are not welcome. Feel free to break out your crayola and draw some angry faces, but I will be here to correct your work so the community is not deceived.

[DmdJJ]

Originally posted by humble
Was certainly an "interesting" welcome back...

I also think it pointed out some of the issues the CM's deal with. Going from memory (and not intending to reopen any "issues") the opposing GIC (guy in charge) for that particular tasked order decided to pickle his ords and attack the B5N's even though he had both a fighter escort with him and there was another group tasked to protect the enemy "fleet".

Snaphook, you don't want to open up any old wounds do ya.

[Skuzzy]

I think Daddog pretty much closed this one out, in  a good way.