FSO: June - Operation Husky, the Invasion of Sicily

[Krusty]

Bouncng an idea off of that Rangoon comment: I sometimes wonder if FSO has grown too large. Back when there were 250 folks the ratios given might work properly, so that one side had "X" bombers that could just barely get the job done, if protected...

Now it seems both sides slam so many cons together in a free-for-all that it kinda resembles the MAs at times (no offense, not talking quality of pilots, just 50 reds v 50 greens). Or you get 30 pilots in heavy bombers when 10 get the job done, NOT counting the 2 extra lives for every bomber.

I dunno, I think some changes could be made here and there, some experiments run. What about rotating some units in and out of FSO so less players are in any given frame?

Or how about removing drones and putting all these 500 players to good use? Put them in as single bombers (naturally shifting more to allied side to make this happen -- the ratios have to be redone).

Just some thoughts.

[PFactorDave]

Or how about removing drones and putting all these 500 players to good use? Put them in as single bombers (naturally shifting more to allied side to make this happen -- the ratios have to be redone).

I think that this is worth exploring.  Removing drones and increasing the number of bombers would accomplish a few things, I think...

- The ratio of bombers to escorts could be brought into a more realistic line
- No drones would force bombers to fly tighter formations for mutual support.  Which would also force bombers to throttle back a bit, perhaps solving the bomber altitude issue.
- Hopefully make a 500 player FSO scenario play better

As to rotating squads in and out of FSO, I don't think that that is a good idea.  FSO is one of the things that keeps a lot of people playing and paying.  Forcing players to sit out doesn't seem like it would be good for FSO or AH2.  I would rather see a sceond session added.  Maybe on a Saturday afternoon, which would be better for our Euro friends.

[B4Buster]

I hate the off week, bring it on!

[Saxman]

I like the thought of removing drones. I find it hard to believe that 500+ players aren't enough people to man a sufficiently-sized bomber force to get the job done after a rebalancing of side assignments. As for the argument that bombers are too vulnerable without drones, FSO IS supposed to be a TEAM event, right? 500 players operating as squadrons, not gaggles? If a squad flying bombers doesn't stay together IMO that's their decision and they SHOULD face the consequences.

Another option is this:

Each squadron assigned to fly a bomber is given a maximum number of aircraft they can utilize. Say, a 7-10 squadron can field a maximum of 12 bombers, to coincide with their +2 allowance. The squadron has 6 pilots actually show up. They would be allowed to have three guys launch with formations to fill in their numbers. If 11 guys show up they can either have 11 players launch in singles or use whatever combination of drones, singles and gunners they need to match their 12 bombers allowed. Combine this with--instead of the "Credible Force" requirement based on how many times over the target can be leveled--assigning each target a "number and size of squad" requirement like some special objectives have in past setups (say, a small airfield must be attacked by 2 4-6 squadrons or 1 7-10 squadron, or something along those lines)

[ghostdancer]

The use of drones is left up to the designer.

The issue of pig piling is basically a design issues. Designs can accommodate 500+ players and have. Basically you need to have enough targets per side and both offense and defense and spread apart enough to make it difficult to pig pile or for forces to clump up.

Lets say you have 6 offensive and 6 defensive targets. That is 12 objectives. Then you have a minimum of 11-15 that must defend or attack each target. That is 132 - 180 pilots committed out of say 250. That leaves the CiC roughly 118 - 70 pilots to deploy as they wish among 12 objectives. Basically if split equally among all objectives .. an additional 10 or 6 pilots per objective.

Now if you make sure if you can have attack objectives say 2 sectors (at least 50 miles) apart, if not more then it becomes hard to pig pile an objective since your strike forces have to diverge at some point to make the T+60 rule. They can't all fly to one target then turn and hit another target if you attack objectives properly (not next to each other and spread out).

So their isn't a need for new rules, basically things can be compensated for in the design of the event.

Now with that said some maps make this extremely hard to do now since the were originally built with the idea of having so many players. Coral Sea and Rangoon come to mind. They have very few bases so it is hard to make sure their are 6 objectives per side and even harder to find bases that are spread out for each frame. Even when you do so with the lack of bases it is hard to make frame 2 different than frame 1.

Italy, Tunisia, Luzon maps are built for large number of players and give the design a lot of options and flexibility.

FSO can accommodate the numbers it is just that are designs are dictated by appropriate maps and then the rest really is a design issue of selecting objectives, make sure their are enough objectives, etc.

Removing drones is decision based on the design and their have been FSO events with no drones and FSO events with drones.

[BnZs]

Or how about removing drones and putting all these 500 players to good use? Put them in as single bombers (naturally shifting more to allied side to make this happen -- the ratios have to be redone).

Just some thoughts.

Removing drones...huh...that does require more people to fly bombers. And lets face it, that is the one assignment the vast majority of participants shoulder out of responsibility rather than desire.

Krusty, don't you think the main problem is the lethality of the linked defensive firepower vs. what individual gunners in individual buffs could probably realistically achieve, rather than the presence of the drones per se?

That said, disabling drones is something the event designer can actually do, so a good stop-gap measure IMO.

[Motherland]

And lets face it, that is the one assignment the vast majority of participants shoulder out of responsibility rather than desire.

What are you basing this on? Just because you don't like to fly bombers doesn't mean everyone else doesn't, too. There are squads who actually request them, you know.

[Odee]

oh no that was a reply to Anaxgoras and odee asking about an A6m2 vs Spit1 Hurri1 setup. Basically the rangoon scenario had a squadron or two of spits and hurris

God I wish people would quote me correctly.   

I was talking about a "What If" scenario for BoB, Italy, and the Europe in general, replacing the LW with IJN/IJA planes.

[fudgums]

Didn't I state that correctly?

[Krusty]

BnZs, not talking about bomber effectiveness (that's really another issue, methinks), but overall gameplay balance. IMO it's been degrading steadily for a while.

ghost says designers can and do accomodate 500 players, but my response is "not very well, they don't." They just stick in some more of the same objectives, some more of the same planes, and scale it up, but scaling things up in steady ratios doesn't equate to "accomodating 500 players" in my opinion.

[fudgums]

Didn't I state that correctly?

I ment the matchup

[SmokinLoon]

I like PFactor's idea of removing drone for bombers, and getting the bomber-escort ratio back in line with the real deal.  I also believe that there could be more ground to ground or air to ground action as well.  Incorperating the entire tool box into the fight would be a good time.  It would thin out the "congestion" in the air, get the gv's rolling, and get the jabos diving as well. 

Also... do not limit squad involvement in FSO.  Like many, I seriously look forward to the FSO as it is a big breath of fresh air from the circle jerk they call the main arenas (LW).

[Hamltnblue]

Removing the drones would make a slaughter more likely since it would reduce the amount of escorts.  Since it's Axis flying participants that want it, I suggest we try it out first in a BoB scenario or another one with axis flying the buffs and Allied flying defense only 

[Shifty]

Removing the drones would make a slaughter more likely since it would reduce the amount of escorts.  Since it's Axis flying participants that want it, I suggest we try it out first in a BoB scenario or another one with axis flying the buffs and Allied flying defense only 

BOB scenario isn't going to show the same results Hammy.

The Ju-88 takes all day to catch in a Hurri I. The British fighters are not shooting at the buffs with cannon, rather 303s.
Also a formation of JU88s doesn't throw all the 50 cal metal in the air that a formation of 17s or 24s do. Instead you get a few 303s.
So you get a different represenation on both sides of the issue.

[Saxman]

Removing the drones would make a slaughter more likely since it would reduce the amount of escorts.  Since it's Axis flying participants that want it, I suggest we try it out first in a BoB scenario or another one with axis flying the buffs and Allied flying defense only 

I disagree that it would swing the balance too far the other way. Depending on the frame on this last campaign, I don't think I saw too many more than 15-20 defending fighters in any area my squadron was operating in. Consider that of those numbers, maybe half were actually equipped for attacking the bombers (190s, 110s, or later 109s with gondolas). If anything, so long as the bomber squadrons STAY TOGETHER, and their escorts do their jobs, (rather than run off looking for a fight like has happened in the past) it should be fairly well-balanced.