Offense and Defense

[Anaxogoras]

Forgive the new guy for pointing out something that's likely clear to a good number of you...

FSO is typically heavy on attack from both sides, and short on defense.  Spare me any bromide about the best defense being a good offense: I think the quality of the event would be improved with a scoring motivation to place a little more emphasis on defense.

During this FSO, The Dogs of War, I flew offense in Frames 1 and 3, and both frames were like a milk run: Arrive at a target that's barely defended by a handful of P-39s or Yaks, the defenders are overwhelmed by local numerical superiority, and the attackers go home triumphant.  In Frame 2, tasked with defense, we were the defenders (12 of us) protecting an airfield against ~48 attackers (La-5s, P-39s, Yaks, Il-2s and B-25s in full force).  This asymmetry seemed to be present in the Fire in the Philippines event too, where we encountered very little resistance attacking the enemy cv's.

One way to provide a scoring motivation for defense would be to decrease the point value of ground objects once X number have already been destroyed.  I'm sure others have thoughts and opinions on this general topic and I'd love to hear them.  Thanks.

[Anaxogoras]

20+ views and no comment.

[sqwiglly]

ever planned a fso?

[Anaxogoras]

ever planned a fso?

I'll take that as a rhetorical question... and I think I already made it clear enough that I'm new at this.  If you read what I wrote carefully, you'll see that I have no gripe with FSO planning in general.

[Squire]

Truth be told, I did rather think some targets were scantly defended. Not just in this last one but others as well (I am a long time FSO player, and CiC). Its a CiC judgement call as to what tactics may best work. My advice would be to be more proactive in talking to your CiC before the orders are written, and let them know what concerns you have.

As for motivation on defense. Look at the #s for the last 3 frames. All the ground attack pts decided the victors. I cant think of what else needs to be said. Defend your targets too lightly at your peril, it will have real consequences. Attack with too many on one target, much of your fighter cover will be wasted. All that said, all FSOs are different, there is no one "magic" tactic that works every time. Attack a target too lightly, and you will have a disaster, so its a tricky call.

So, I do agree with the gist of your observation, but I will point out that its a strategy call, and hindsight is 20-20.

[j500ss]

I would agree that some targets were scantily defended as well. But in a realistic sense, these were the same types of issues planners had to deal with during WWII  as well.

[Hamltnblue]

Overall I think the average FSO has the same issues, but usually equally on both sides unless you are one of the unlucky ones to be outnumbered 4-1 when in the wrong place the wrong time.  You also can't compare it to actual events.  Defense was more likely to be present since there wasn't a set start time that both sides followed with attacks required by T+60.  It's just part of the game that can't be easily avoided and still have a successful night.

[442w30]

Adding to some of the excellent comments that precede this:

From a multiple time CiC standpoint, I try to do what I can to make sure everyone has fun.  In the case of a Set-up like this where you are required to up a minimum of 12 Ju88s and 24 Stukas, that means you have at least 36 players that are probably going to be less than thrilled with their ride.  What I did was to make sure my bomber guys had sufficient escorts so that it wouldn't be a duck shoot for them.  The result of that is sometimes a defensive target that is less defended than it should be.  Sometimes that results in an unbalanced battle but unlike in bombers, fighters can fight back more effectively and can sometimes can use their own ack to assist.  Ask the AKs who stood alone with 17 pilots and shot down 31 enemies.  Just looking at those numbers they were outnumbered almost 2:1 (at least).
So yes, you might have had a milk run last night but think about this complaint, "I flew for 50 minutes in this slow crate and then we and our 8 escorts were pounced on by 30 Yaks and LAs."  All that flight time just to have me and my drones shot down in 90 seconds."  That happened to my squad and another squad last week. The other squad's CO told me they lost everyone (20+ pilots) and my Air Raiders also lost 100% of our planes.  So at T+60 we had 30 pilots out of the event and that was just at one target.   

That is the reverse and is the reason (IMHO) that many hate flying anything that isn't a dedicated fighter. BTW I am NOT complaining.  It is the nature of FSO and that is fine with me. 

Last night the defense on Axis was also hindered by an unusual amount of discos.  Most of them were in defensive patrol squads and in one squad was 25% of their numbers.  The AKs lost around 20% themselves. 

Squire mentioned that communicating concerns before orders are written is important.  When I am CiC, I send out an email on Sunday night asking for ride preferences AND comments.  I have never received a comment that said, "put us in bombers" or "let us defend a target".  Almost all the comments I have ever received have been to put their squad in the best fighter available AND in an offensive role. 

So in my opinion, sometimes in order to try to make 100% of your side have fun, you have to do what might not make sense in a strict military sense.  Opinions of course vary on that and of course, no matter what you do, not everyone is going to have a good FSO experience. 

[Dantoo]

Whenever I have been CIC, I have never received sufficient resources to completely cover the tasks allocated.  It is a nightmare.

I hope that never changes.

rgds

[Saxman]

I think more consideration needs to be given to the target being attacked.

In Frame 2 367th, Precision and VMF-251 were all tasked with striking V32 in Bf-110s. I'd need to double-check the logs for the other two squadrons, but the Bucs had 10 in our flight roster that night. I'm guessing altogether we may have had 25 or so 110s in the strike package. Perhaps the CiC was wanting to make sure there was enough numbers that the strike made it through to target. We ended up breaking our attack down to hit from three directions, however 367th was forced to go in first due to nearby enemy aircover, and achieved 100% destruction before the other two squadrons were in position.

In hindsight, three squadrons of 110s was definitely overkill. One squadron was able to shut down the target on their first pass, and even if not could have withdrawn and rearmed for a second attempt. This many 110s would have been a good choice for attacking a large target such as a factory, or maybe a city or HQ, but against a V-base, or even a port or large airfield was really a bit much.

If the CiC more strongly considered the target(s) when making their assignment I think it would naturally balance things out.

[442w30]

Whenever I have been CIC, I have never received sufficient resources to completely cover the tasks allocated.  It is a nightmare.

I hope that never changes.

rgds

I agree.  Not having to decide which mission(s) are going to be short of resources is part of the fun-

[4XTCH]

Forgive the new guy for pointing out something that's likely clear to a good number of you...

FSO is typically heavy on attack from both sides, and short on defense.  Spare me any bromide about the best defense being a good offense: I think the quality of the event would be improved with a scoring motivation to place a little more emphasis on defense.

Actually, I think that I've heard many times in football (american) "The best Offense is a good Defense"

FSO's that allow 1 side as defense only....... IMHO have faired much better for the defender. After all that's all their tasked to do.


4XTCH

[Odee]

20+ views and no comment.

 
I take the blame for frame 2.  Had I been more thorough and researched the numbers attending in the squad assignments on Axis side, I would have scrapped the sweeps and put them in defense.  Atually, I was quite surprised that none of the 2 and 3 plane defenders hadn't reamed me out before or after the frame.
 

[ghostdancer]

FSO is as has always been designed to give each side of a set of objectives to achieve and then to try to give the CiCs enough room and flexibility to achieve them. We can not legislate common sense without basically turning the event into a scripted battle where players don't have anything to do with strategy and their only goal is the actual engagement of the enemy.

So with this in mind realize that some CiCs will go lighter or heavier on the defense based on how they interpret the objectives and deem the best way to win the battle. In the past I have seen and dealt with CiCs that focused mostly on the defense and only sent out token forces to conduct the attack. By doing so they had hoped that they could deny the enemy any points from hitting objectives (even though they gave up any realistic chance of hitting their objectives) and winning it by just killing planes.

You also have had before and from what you said the opposite thinking. Where a CiC goes for a heavy offense. Again they hope that can outscore their enemy by doing more damage to ground targets and killing planes than they will lose for not well defending their targets. Usually (based on past results) going fully offense or defense (not committing more than you need to do by the FSO rules) results in that side losing. Since it is common sense and usually plays out that you need a mix of offense and defense. Yes, you have to decide on which to favor over the other but neglecting one or the other completely in most cases does not work out well.

FSO needs to leave in the flexibility for the CiC to actually plan strategy which also means they have ability to fail by making faulty strategic assumptions in their plans. Generally there are things that work and that don't that CiCs generally learn and implement. Their are also one off strategies  .. such as not providing escorts to bombers because you hope you either pull away the defender from the target area or that a sweep in force kills the defenders. Sometimes things like this work but overall it is a faulty strategy (which is why I am using it as an example) since the bombers could be intercept by an enemy force that is not the defense force of the target they are after and without escorts .. it is usually messy.

But the CiCs have the right to try strategies and experiment.

That said yes, the CMs are discussing if we have to better define what the minimum force needs to be put in place for attack and defense for game play purposes.

[WxMan]

That said yes, the CMs are discussing if we have to better define what the minimum force needs to be put in place for attack and defense for game play purposes.