Example CIC orders

[AKKuya]

Went to Special Events and saw the Example CIC Orders.  Even logged into the site, the page read "You're not authorized to view this resource".

Thought I pass this along to the CM staff.

[daddog]

How about now?

Still a work in progress. I have several others (Viper, Saxman, couple others..) that I have not put up yet. I figured I might as well make it public.

[AKKuya]

We can see them now. Thanks   Those are fantastic sets of orders.

  to all who volunteered their samples!!!!!!

[TUK]

 
I am honored that you posted my 'High Blue'  CIC orders Daddog.
<<<Hopes people will use all of these examples... Great ideah sir... Tuk151

[WxMan]

If your going to change the rules, change the rules. Don't hide them in the example CiC orders.


Actually what the CM's should do is just write the freaking CiC's orders for each side.  It should be win-win situation for the designers. The event will play out exactly as the envision and the orders to each side will never be late. 

I would love to say more, but civility prevents it. 

[TUK]

If your going to change the rules, change the rules. Don't hide them in the example CiC orders.


Actually what the CM's should do is just write the freaking CiC's orders for each side.  It should be win-win situation for the designers. The event will play out exactly as the envision and the orders to each side will never be late. 

I would love to say more, but civility prevents it. 

Wow, Did your football team loose today or something? 
Very sharp your remarks are....

[daddog]

 
Change what rules? What am I missing here?

[RSLQK186]

In the invalid attack example it is stated that it is against the rules to not assign a seperate attack for each target.
Rules state:
- All targets must be attacked within 60 minutes of the start of the frame. They must be attacked with explosive ordinance, (rockets and bombs) by a full squadron. Feints and diversions prior to a larger strike force do not satisfy the requirements of this rule. Simply strafing a target with fighters does not satisfy the requirements of this rule. CIC's are expected to construct their orders in such a way that the main attacks reach their targets by T+60. Administrator CM's may request copies of orders to evaluate the observance of this rule.  

The rules do not seem to exempt someone from massing two attack groups across 2 targets as long as each are assigned 1 target as primary and hit the last by T+60. And this has been done plenty of times in the past. I have read something recantly that this may change. If the examples were made with this in mind, perhaps the rules should have been up dated first and then the examples put up.

[ghostdancer]

The Invalid attack example will also be posted to the rules section. It was an oversight that is being rectified. I thought it had been posted to the rule section in the October FSO but it wasn't. We CM's are working on this issue and will get it in the right place.

I believe the graphic examples though explain why we made this decision and it is has purely been made for game play reasons and has been thoroughly discussed among the FSO CMs. While the Oct. FSO worked out fine and all targets were hit and saw combat previous FSO actually did experience only the first target in a chain being hit and the follow on targets not being attacked.

While we do our best not to straight jackets CiCs and provide the most flexibility we as CMs also have to consider the big picture and game play. This is the reason for us saying that follow on attacks (hit target A then continue on and hit target B) does not count as valid attacks anymore for hitting two targets. We have had several examples this year of squads going:

"Hey the base we were defending was not attacked, what happened? We spent xx many minutes online for nothing!" Sometimes this is do to an attack force being slaughtered but yes there have been times when it was also do to a follow on attack that hit the first target but did not continue onto the second target.

Let me state again that the concentration of force and defeating an enemy in detail are valid tactics. However, when taken past a certain point they do cause game play issues. There were no issues in the October FSO with this type of strategy. However, there have been enough issues previous to October that we decided to modify the rules. As for their placement, we apologize for that and are working on making them public on the AHevent site and in the appropriate place. They were not design to be a gotcha.

For those who have not seen what we are talking about it is these:

[ghostdancer]

As stated this is just an organization thing where the graphics were created first. I believed that the rules section and examples page had been updated at the same time. They have not been and the rules section will be updated to reflect this change.

Currently the two are out of sync. Again this is not an attempt to do a gotcha on anybody this is simply a web page update / creation over site which will be remedied.

Daddog created the example CiC orders and included my graphics in them. I have not updated the rule section as of yet.

I apologize for any confusion or angst this has caused anyone because the two pages are currently out of sync.

 

[ghostdancer]

I would also like to make a comment about the addition of rules. We CMs add rules do to the evolution of game play to cover events that happen or have shown that they can adversely affect game play. This doesn't me they do it every time but it means when that they have had some very negative affects (in the case of this rule addition it stems from an event in the July 2009 FSO but also had similiar events with negative events previous to that incident).

As I said our rules evolve and grow over time.

• Originally their was no T+60 rule. It was instituted after it CiCs started planning their attacks to hit targets at the T+90 or greater mark in attempt to put bombers and escorts over targets after the defenders had to land to refuel. Resulting in quite a few squads complaining about flying for 90 minutes or longer with no combat.
• The all Targets must be attack and defended rule came in existence because several CiCs started to either not attack or not defend all their targets and instead concentrated on attacking or defending just what they considered high value targets (concentrating their forces while writing off certain objectives). This resulted in some squads seeing no action at all while others pig piled by a massively superior force.
• Next we had to start defining a credible force must attack and defend all targets since some CiCs started sending in 1 plane to attack a target to fulfill the all targets must be attacked by strafing a base. Same thing happened on defense with a lone 4-6 squad (say average 3 pilots) tasked to defend a single base all by themselves.
• We also instituted the min and max rule on plane types since at one juncture we didn't mandate that all the planes in a planeset be used. So many CiCs opted not to use the planes they considered dogs at all. Then when we did mandate in designs that all planes in a planeset needed to be used some CiCs tasked 1 pilot to fly a Yak9u and put everybody else in a La7. Which lead to the min and max rule on plane types we use now.

I can site the reasoning behind other rules and rest assure we do discuss them before hand and do try to deal with issues as they arise first by other means instead of rules. We also do build in flexibility which is why we have to review each frame and make judgment calls to see if a rule was met or not do to circumstance.

e.g. An attack force being destroyed before getting to a target still counts as an attempted attack.

e.g. An attack force bombing a target, say CVs, but missing with all their bombs or just hitting say with one bomb still count as an attack.

[Nefarious]

I agree with the new Attack Rules but maybe I missed the explanation for this above. Example CiC Orders 2 ( http://ahevents.org/fso-related/example2.html ) Should be switched for one that is not in violation of the new rules. Or possibly ad to the following information that it is against the rules, cause right now it reads like what he did was ok. (Which it was at the time).

Here is an example by Tuk151. Tuk added some pictures to his orders which give is a WWII 'flavor' if you will. Many enjoy doing that. You can also tell that he included more information. Information that is not required, but could be helpful listing. Some of which included the active bases, targets and their locations, value of ground targets, arena settings, and wind. Squads were divided into ‘strike packages’ and he then listed those and included a strat map. Please note that in some routes/strike packages he has assigned two targets.

What is important to note is he also assigned multiple squads to those single routes, that had multiple targets. For example the blue strike package has a minimum of 65 aircraft to strike both targets. This tactic is only a problem when you have single squads assigned to attack multiple targets. If that single squad is wiped out after their 1st target they would never reach their 2nd target leaving a squad to circle a base for 2 hours that would never be attacked.

Not trying to point fingers or anything, just seems confusing. 

[ghostdancer]

So what is going on here is that after discussion and weighing the negatives and considering how often this sort of thing happens and how often it throws game play out of balance we decided to add on another rule.

Simply put assigning two forces to hit target A and then jointly hit target B counts as a valid attack on target A and not target B. In the July incident this was the strategy used and target B was not attacked at all do to the combat over target A. As a CM we could not rule that target B not being hit was okay when the combined tasked force was given an option of rearming instead of continuing on to target B. Or the fact that they were mauled at target A (50 - 75 miles away from target B) trying to hit target A and not B.

The key thing here is that we find follow on attacks to have more negative results on game play than positive. A good CiC, AKWxMn, can manage and mitigate these inherent risks. In his frame 2 BoB attack plan he gave time marks for his forces. He said Force A you must hit target A by T+37. Force A you must be over target B by T+45.

He gave very concise, solid and informative orders. This usually does not happen and even with such orders a CiC basically hopes that once the battle plan is put into action that it is executed well. As I said his orders were perfect and were perfectly executed. Back in the July FSO the result was the not the same. One target was pig piles and another target was not hit at all.

Now, we tried to build in flexibility into this and that is why we had graphic examples to show that you can go:

Force A and Force B fly together to this way point (or even to target A). Then force A hit target A and force B push on and hit target B. The key here is push on. Not hit target A then afterwards conduct a follow on attack on target B.

This way the CMs and everyone involved knows that there are two distinct attacks that have equal value. Force B is not tempted to go .. oh, force A didn't damage the target so we should use our bombs here instead of going after target B.

I can go on about the reasoning but hopefully you get the gist that this about trying to make sure that we have good and fun game play for everybody (or at least the chance of good and fun game play for everybody). If all we cared was about who won then it would be simple for all those involved.

Here are your targets, here the planes you can use, and here is the scoring system. Whoever has the most points win, end of deal. No T+60, no all targets need to be attack, no all targets need to be defended, etc., etc.

[ghostdancer]

Correct this was a valid tactic at the time those orders were created. We are instituting it for upcoming FSOs (and a admin CM still can say I am not using this rule, they just have to put that in their special rules). So yes need to post a clarification that these orders may not reflect the most current rules now being used.

Agreed, it is confusing and also needs to be on the rules page. Working on clarifying things and posting them in appropriate spots.

[Nefarious]

I understand why the rules were implemented, I just wanted make sure you guys knew about Example 2.