Random Thought

[Saxman]

Was thinking a bit about utilization of aircraft and launch bases in FSO.

It seems to me when looking at our squad's orders from week to week, there's a tendency to only use some of the active launch bases. I know I've seen it where everyone rolls from one or two active aircraft carriers out of half a dozen (during the Okinawa campaign, for example).

I'll grab my asbestos undies now, but:

Restrict the total number of aircraft that can launch from a base, dependent on the base type.

Say you have a large field, two medium fields and a small field that are active for launch. You have a MAX of 325 pilots (including the +2 over allowance) on your side. The CM specifies that of those four launch bases:

• The Large field can launch 125 pilots
• The Medium fields can each launch 80
• The Small field can launch 40

This would NOT include formations for buffs, however Buffs could be restricted to medium or large airfields only. The end result is that the CiC will need to more carefully consider how he assembles his defense groups and strike packages.

A similar method can be used on CVs. Altogether, carriers would be permitted no more than 90 aircraft. Of that 90 the carrier can launch up to:

• 36 fighters (F6F, F4Us, F4Fs, FM-2s, Seafires, Zeros, etc. Fighters can carry ordinance at CiC discretion).
• 36 dive-bombers (SBDs, D3As).
• 18 torpedo planes (TBM and B6N).

The above can be modified based on the needs of the setup. For example, reducing the number of dive-bombers and increasing the number of fighters, as was the historical case on US carriers late in the war (if you're interested, I pulled these numbers from the average complement of the Essex-class carriers).

Just a thought, but could help put a bit more strategy into the setups.

[Squire]

It is sometimes done, its a design call. Sometimes its done to avoid fps problems on launch, or it could be another reason, like trying to spread out the action along a small map.

[Fencer51]

If I may add my own random thought..

Require a set amount of the forces be used for defense.  Say 25 to 30 aircraft per target or 40% of the total force.  Out of a nominal 250 person per side FSO that would be 100 aircraft.

[ghostdancer]

That has been done also. Depends on the designer. The COs, XOs or each squad get my objectives. In it I defined a credible attack and defense force for each objective of at least 15 planes. So in last frame you have 5 attack and 5 defense objectives .. which should have tied up 150 pilots. Plus, 21 committed to the ground. So 171 .. with a turnout of say 250 that gives a CiC about 79 pilots to deploy as he wishes.

Depending on the design what constitutes a credible attack / defense force might go up or go down.

[Saxman]

Then I suppose I should say that rather than leaving it to the individual setup such limits should be standardized in the general rules. The individual scenario setups could then specify modifications as needed (say, as in one example I gave late-war American CVs can launch 52 fighters, 18 dive-bombers and 18 torpedo planes to reflect the historical change in US carrier complements).

[68falcon]

Then I suppose I should say that rather than leaving it to the individual setup such limits should be standardized in the general rules. The individual scenario setups could then specify modifications as needed (say, as in one example I gave late-war American CVs can launch 52 fighters, 18 dive-bombers and 18 torpedo planes to reflect the historical change in US carrier complements).

Your concern and ideas are welcome but why make a rule and then have to change to accommodate a design. The Admins and FSO already have more then enough rules and guidelines to cope with.

[Anaxogoras]

If I may add my own random thought..

Require a set amount of the forces be used for defense.  Say 25 to 30 aircraft per target or 40% of the total force.  Out of a nominal 250 person per side FSO that would be 100 aircraft.

Uh-oh...

My short experience in FSO is like this:

Assigned offense, overwhelm the enemy with superior numbers...
Assigned defense, be overwhelmed with superior numbers...

[Saxman]

Uh-oh...

My short experience in FSO is like this:

Assigned offense, overwhelm the enemy with superior numbers...
Assigned defense, be overwhelmed with superior numbers...

That's why restricting the number of aircraft a given field or carrier can launch would be useful. It would help spread the numbers out more and give defenders a better chance. If the CiC wants to achieve his strike objectives through overwhelming firepower rather than finesse it will require more coordination if that strike has to come for four or five different launch bases.

Case in point: the 120-Val strike force during Frame 1 of Miracle at Midway. If the CVs could only launch so many total planes and so many TYPES of aircraft (in this case as I stated above: 36 Zeros, 36 Vals and 18 Kates) the CiC would have had to either work with just the strike planes rolling off the CV nearest to Midway and plan accordingly, or coordinated bombers coming off of two or three different carriers, some of which may not have been in position before T+60.

[Anaxogoras]

I should say, it's not always like that, but a lot of the time.

[Saxman]

Most of the time.

I've only been involved in a handful of defense sorties where we weren't heavily outnumbered. Of the times we weren't, the majority of THOSE were because of a failure of coordination between the attacking squadrons which allowed us to deal with each part of the strike piecemeal.

[68Wooley]

Gotta agree with Saxman.

Whilst I wouldn't want to see fixed rules put in place, it would be good from to see realistic numbers rolling from CV's and something done to prevent unrealistic offensive numbers overwhelming defences. I've been on both the giving and receiving end of those situations in recent frames and neither is ideal. No frame planning can ever be perfect and its unreasonable for anyone to expect them to be, but anything we can do to limit large imbalances is welcome.

One of the problems we face is that with some 500 players per frame and growing, I'm guessing we're starting to outnumber the actual number of pilots involved in some of the scenarios we're trying to recreate.



 

[ghostdancer]

As for unrealistic offense and defense numbers .. we do assign a credible force number to both. In the case Operation August Storm I have assigned it as 15. There are 5 attack and defense objectives. So that accounts for 150 pilots. Plus, another 21 in GVs intially. So 171 pilots have to be put into specific roles in specific areas on the map.

Based on frame 1 turn out that leaves basically 70-80 pilots for the CiC to deploy as he wishes.

Now remember one of the main principles of warfare is to maximize your numbers against a weaker force. On the offense you never want it to be a 1 / 1 ratio. The trick is coming up with the right ratio. Say your opponent hits one target with 45 pilots (3 times the amount the min required in this FSO). What he has to consider is whether that is to much or not. If he deploys say 60 pilots against one objective .. (15 required .. 45 from the pool of 70/80 he can deploy as he wills) he is hurting other areas objectives. Yes, he can probably overwhelm that one objective now but he has deployed roughly 50% of his discretionary pilots .. he how has say 25 / 35 pilots to deploy among 9 other objectives (offense and defense). Say he ignores the defense and only deploys the 15 min that is required. He still have 25 / 35 pilots to split among 4 offensive objectives.

So slamming on objective gives him a good chance and killing it completely but hurts his changes with the other 4 objectives and leaves him hoping that his defense forces can hold off the enemy.

Remember in my FSOs both sides split points for bases. The attacker gets points for what he destroys and the defender gets points for what is not destroyed. So going all offensive, which might seem like a good idea, can actually end up hurting you badly.

CiCs have to realize that you need a good mix of forces and deployment sizes and then take a few gambles on prioritizing targets. Hit target A more heavy than the other targets and gamble that say weakening defense at your base B won't hurt you badly in the long run.

[ghostdancer]

Also, the deployment of pickets and scouts helps a lot. One scouts can allow an attack force to skirt around defenders. The scouts find the enemy defense, the escorts engage, and the bombers / jabo planes avoid the battle and skirt around it and hit the base from a different (hopefully clear) direction.

For defenders pickets help pick and determine where an enemy is and increases the chances of engaging the enemy in detail before they all form up and hit as a group.

So your thoughts are good but part of things does rely not only on the setup and the objectives but on how a CiC sees the lay of the land, what difficulties he must over come, and then how he constructs his battle plan. An overly complex can lead to disaster but an overly simple plan can also lead to disaster. Over my career in FSO I have seen some people just pig pile the heck out of one or two targets and completely crush them but still lose the frame since they didn't realize that they hadn't left enough for defense or to hit other targets.

I have also seen people concentrate on just killing planes. Depending on the setup that also can be bad since most FSOs try to balance the bombing objectives versus air to air. Meaning it is more important in most FSOs to get the bombers through or kill the bombers before they drop than to just kill fighters.

Even pig piles can not work at times. Say an enemy has the alt on you and while you out number them they a decent amount of defenders. Then say these defenders say ignore the escorts as much as you can. Just kill buffs. Remember a buff in some setups is more points (10-15 versus 5) and if you kill it, well it can't bomb. So the enemy defenders may be savaged but if they kill enough buffs they still might win the encounter because of points gained from bomber loss and the prevention of bombing. Possible ways around this is to do a layered attack or to send in a different force from another direction instead of pig piling.

As I said their are a lot of things to consider when being CiC and each choice you make really affects things and simple is not always better.

[Squire]

Its up to the CiCs to assign a credible # of defense a/c on CAP. If you are expecting 20-30 fighters and some bomber formations lets say (and thats a typical FSO strike), then assigning 10 fighters to CAP is going to get a predictable result for the defenders.

[Anaxogoras]

Like the 37 N1K's that attacked A108, which was defended by 13 La-5s?