Example CIC orders

[WxMan]

Ghostdancer, thank you for the time not only in explaining all of this, but for what is probably countless hours in the design and implemtation of each event. Although you may not think it, I and many others do appreciate it.   

This is perhaps your most persuasive point:

In my opinion this is what concerns me more than the concentration of forces. A follow on attack does not guarantee an attack on a the second target no matter what a CiC instructs to his troops. It also muddies the picture to an extent that for the second target all you can go by is whether the target 2 took damage or not? Then of course you are stuck with the question how much damage? Is it a credible attack if the bundled attack force spend all their ordinance at target 1 except for maybe 10%? Is it a valid attack on target 2 if only 1 bomber or 1 formation holds back bombs from hitting target 1 to attack target 2? How do CMs know how much ordinance is reserved for each target? Realistically we can only tell by bomb hits so lets say the attack force kept back 30% of their bomb load to hit target 2 but completely missed (remember in BoB frame 1 the LW bomb effectiveness was like 30% overall .. so it can happen). So if they miss how does the CM know if they just missed or if say instead they ran out of bombs at frame 1 or only let loose maybe 1 bombers worth of bombs?

On a non follow through attack I can tell from a CiCs orders what was assigned and intended. Force A with an escort squad of Y and a bomber squad Z was tasked to hit target 1. If they miss I still know they were carrying xxxx amount of ordinance soley intended for target 1. If they got intercepted I can go they were intercepted and destroyed while trying to get to target. Follow on attacks muddy the picture to much for me to make anything but Draconian calls on target 2.

Too often we forget that after the event ends, the second phase of your work just begins. I now understand the problems you have (or may) face in such a situation.

I still disagree as I feel a well planned and executed follow on attack should remain a viable option, but I see your point.

In the past year, three new rules have been added for the FSO's. A significant acceleration from years past. In my preparation of Frame 2 I spent what I thought was an inordinate amount of time checking and double checking that all the rules were followed. Even after that, I felt is was necessary to submit my warning orders to the FSO legal department for approval. This is becoming all to complicated, I can understand the confusion that the CiC in your example above faced.

[ghostdancer]

I agree that to much time is spent on rules and such. Heck, just look at the objectives I send out and all the text in them trying to cover and explain everything. I wish we didn't have to do that and that somehow we can simplify things to some level that everybody understands and gets it.

I really dislike the fact that when I say attack a target that I have to define a "credible force." Basically I dislike the fact that we have to define things more and more and spell out parameters and so on.

You sent your orders for review and got the thumbs up. A pain to do and time consuming for you and the CM but basically gets a sign off by the CM saying everything is okay by me. That over rides everything else since if a CM okays it .. well he okay it and it is his issue if that contradicts something else.

In frame 3 the Axis CiC assigned 4 squads to hit 3 targets within 25 miles of each other that were not targets. He didn't send his objectives for review. So only after the fact when I went through the logs did I go .. why the heck were these bases attacked in this type of force? Then after talking to people involved I saw it was not a mistake. It wasn't a violation of rules to hit three bases that were nothing but it was a waste of 4 squads. A review not only looks for violations but also for things like this .. a misunderstanding or even a chance for a CM to give some advice

- e.g. I don't think a nap of the earth attack by B5Ns with no escorts is really a good idea, are you sure want to do this? (this is a fake example)

So thank you for your comments and understanding why we did this. I am with you though that I wish we could find another way and I think all of the CM team is like that; The less rules the better. Personally I enjoy seeing how CiCs come up with solutions to problems I give them, especially if I never thought of that strategy / solution.

The problem is the increasing administrative load on both CiCs and Admins for running an event that has 500 people in it. Being a CiC is no small task since creating good orders requires a lot of research and testing. Figuring out time to distance, doing some off line recon of target sites, figuring out what alt planes can get to and how that impacts time to target, etc.

So CiCs and Admins are in the same boat of having a lot of work to do and unfortunately both have to deal with the fact that past incidents have result in defining parameters more strictly for things.

[ghostdancer]

After discussing things with my fellow CMs I need to make a clarification here that there are two valid components to this.

The first component regards the situation at the first target and the dog piling affect. The fact that the attacker has now doubled his available pilots to hit one target while a defender has more limited options to deal with this. Basically Daddog's example of 80 versus 15 at the first target instead of say 40 versus 15 (remember the attack force is not all escorts of bombers but a mix). Quite a few CMs place this as their primary concern and the game play affects and enjoyment of participants at the first target.

I personally fall into the camp which is more concerned with the situation at the second target (as explained above) and if an attack results or does not on the second target.

So while their is a difference of opinion on whether the situation at the first target or second target is more of a concern or the primary concern from a game play perspective the net results is actually the same. Plus, both components are valid issues and intertwined.

So view it as a more an issue of whether a stop sign is colored brick red or firehouse red. Not an issue of whether a stop sign is needed at all.

Just wanted to clarify that and state that my concern of emphasis on the situation at the second target is my personal stance on the issue.

[WxMan]

The first component regards the situation at the first target and the dog piling affect. The fact that the attacker has now doubled his available pilots to hit one target while a defender has more limited options to deal with this. Basically Daddog's example of 80 versus 15 at the first target instead of say 40 versus 15 (remember the attack force is not all escorts of bombers but a mix). Quite a few CMs place this as their primary concern and the game play affects and enjoyment of participants at the first target.

Now this I still have a problem with.  Up to this point all rules were to ensure that all squads saw sufficient action in a reasonable amount of time.  Now we are concerned with dogpiling?  What will the CM's rule next when an overwhelming force is sent against a single target? Start dictating the maximum amount of aircraft a CiC can send against any target?  If so, refer to my original post.

[ghostdancer]

After some private discussions I think I need to clarify a statement I made more.

It does not really addressing routing. The examples show that you can bundle your planes together to waypoint X. Heck you could bundle them together to the target A and just say bomber force B and escort B push on past and hit target 2. Of course routing them right through a battle runs the risk of losing some of your bombers and disrupting the cohesion of the group to hit base 2, which is why I tend to like skirt around the battle and send escorts in first to pin down an enemy defenders to a certain location so that I can then try to route people past them to where ever they are going.

What do I mean by push past here? When I say push past basically it that you encounter an enemy and instead of engaging push past them. You can do this several ways.

First way to avoid the enemy altogether and set a way point at a safe distance from target 1 and have your force B break off there. Usually it is best to be about 25 miles or more out from target 1 for this type of routing or tactic. At 50 miles out you probably won't run into the enemy yet or it you do it is just pickets. So you don't yet have to fear an out and out attack on your bombers. At 25 miles out you most likely will encounter the enemy in force. This is because if the defender engages you at any closer range they really don't have a chance of stopping your attack force. Especially if you are in JABOs .. you let JABOs get within 12 miles uncontested and with alt you won't be able to stop them from diving on your base and dropping ordinance. Well unless they are slow JABOs .. say B5Ns.

Instead of setting a way point you can push past, breaking your force in two when contact with the defenders in force occurs. However, if you go this route you need to setup your forces correctly.

Basically you need to have escort A run a forward screen far enough ahead of your bombers that they can't see visually see them and be out another say 3 minutes or so from there. Then you have escort B provide close escort to bomber A and bomber B. Once escort A encounters the defenders they report it and do their best to engage the defenders and pin them in place so they can't see the bombers.

Bomber force A, Bomber force B, and Escort B then wheels in the direction toward the second target. In effect they try to skirt around the battle area unseen of flank it. Then at a reasonable moment bomber force A breaks back toward target 1 and starts their run. Meanwhile bomber force B and escort B push past and on toward target 2. They also end up providing a rear screen to the bombers then running toward target 1. Since defenders coming toward the tail side of bomber force 1 will encounter force B heading in another direction.

Actually running force B over the actual target 1 runs quite a few risks that impact whether they will even get to target 2 or not. Basically it subjects them to attack, can disrupt their cohesion, expend their ammo, use up WEP, etc. Resulting in them being beat up, not well organized, possibly at an alt disadvantage when they encounter the defenders at target 2.

Also it gives your opponent information on you. Defenders will broadcast the your numbers, make up, and direction to others. So if you route a second force actually over base the defenders will go .. hey target 1 is being hit. But X many bombers flew past toward the NW without dropping bombs. Which an astute CiC will go .. aha .. they are on their way somewhere else. What base could they being going after? Hmm, this base is 50 miles away I will tell my defenders to move to point X and get ready to jump them.

Now if the defenders don't see you then they can't report you and vector in other people or prepare positions.

Now lets say you don't bundle two forces together and have them split off at way point X or at first significant enemy contact. Say you only have one force. Many CiCs like to go with say a ratio of 1 escort pilot per 2 bomber pilots. Figuring that the bombers will suffer casualties but their numbers guarantee some will get through. Personally I am not a proponent of this strategy.

Lets say you have a force of 21 pilots. This strategy calls for 7 escort pilots and 14 bomber pilots. If formations are in use lets say 9 and 12 since 12 bomber pilots is 36 buffs. Here you are saying that 9 escort pilots and the the number of bombers you have should guarantee you get some ordinance to target.

The problem I have with this strategy is that to be effective the escorts have to fly close escort. So again when the defenders find you they find you and the buffs and can pick when they attack your buffs. Also your buffs are under attack which can severely disrupt their runs. They might not die but since they are under attack their bomb drops might be off resulting in a poor bomb damage rate.

If you go the other way 14 escorts and 7 bomber pilots you now have other options. You can break your escorts into two groups. 7 for close escort and 7 for a forward screen. If no formations in that FSO design then you have 1 to 1 close escort protection on the buffs. While you have 7 forward guys trying to disrupt the enemy before they see your buffs and organize for slashing attacks. Seven fighters can completely destroy the cohesion of the defenders if they forget their job is to find and kill buffs.

If formations are on then you have 7 forward / screen escorts, 7 close escorts and 21 bombers.

With or without formations you have an effective forward screen that is to engage enemy forces before they see the buffs. As soon as contact is made the buffs then can wheel with their close escorts avoid the battle and push past it to target (skirting around it) so they can try to get unmolested runs on the base which should approve their bomb damage rate and also expose them to less concentrated attacks. The close escorts are around just in case some defenders come across them now that weren't engage in the forward screen. You could also change your forward to close escort ration. Say 9 forward and 5 close escort now.

Most FSO are designed to reflect that anything with bombers realistically has two main goals. Keep the bombers alive so that they can get bombs on target. A dead buff not only costs you the point for that buff but also robs you of the potential for scoring points with ordinance.

[daddog]

I have updated the FSO rules. I have added the following under .6 Responsibilities/Squad Operations Frame CiC.

- CICs shall not organize a mission with orders to attack more than one objective in succession.  More simply stated, one objective, one mission.  If there are 8 offensive objectives for one side during a frame, the CIC shall ensure that there are eight attack missions, each assigned to attack a single objective.  This rule is intended to prevent CICs from overwhelming the defenders of a single target. For example, a large combined force of 60 aircraft attacking three bases that are each singly defended by a squad of 15 or 20. Please see the following examples.
http://ahevents.org/fso-related/cic-example-orders.html

- If in any doubt that your orders are within the rules of FSO contact the Admin CM.

- After initial attacks are made in compliance with the T+60 rule follow up attacks are allowed and maybe conducted by the CIC.

I have also made a note in 'Tuks' example orders that it is no longer a valid tactic.

I don't expect everyone to like this, but in the long run I believe it will add to the enjoyment of FSO to many squads.

I also want to be clear that in no way am I criticizing anyone who has used this tactic. I have myself in the past.

[WxMan]

- CICs shall not organize a mission with orders to attack more than one objective in succession.  More simply stated, one objective, one mission.  If there are 8 offensive objectives for one side during a frame, the CIC shall ensure that there are eight attack missions, each assigned to attack a single objective. 
b]

  You might as well just turn the dar on.   What I felt that FSO provided at one time was the anticipation of the unexpected. While attacking or defending a target you would have to plan for contingencies whether at the CiC or squad level. Now every frame, every mission will be just like the last. Forget that the fact that the average engagement for the two hour period of FSO is 10 minutes or less. If somebody is looking for constant action, then they should've stayed in the MA

This rule is intended to prevent CICs from overwhelming the defenders of a single target.

So what is the definition of overwhelming force. 1.5 v 1, 2 v 1, 3 v 1? Remember, we're talking a single target and the intent of the rule. I suspect It's another ridiculous ruling that will eventually come. Also will it work in reverse? What happens if only 7 attack 14 or 21 defenders. What will the ruling be then? Will other rules come out limiting the maximum squad for defense as well as offense? I forsee the "intent" of this rule only leading to more whines and additional problems for the FSO Legal Team.

[haasehole]

   Tuk said there were some new cic rules to look over and as i started reading this I was at first really concerned    Tuk and I spent a bit of time on the high blue orders to make sure it was within the rules ie;escort/jabos. I think the 1 objective/1 mission will make it a bit simpler, thoo I see some issues that might make the light of day. But it's good to see a evolution of the rules,and a attitude of progress, I was also thinking that cic should sumit the orders to the cm staff for review and blessing. IMHO   We are looking forward to being back in the FSO action  

[daddog]

Now every frame, every mission will be just like the last.

Not at all.

You don’t know the exact:
Time of the attack
Altitude of the attackers.
Direction of the attack.
Plane type attacking.
Number of attackers.

Plenty of unknowns.

I am looking at the number of squads assigned to a target, not the number of players attacking a target. If a CiC assigns a small single squad (4-6) to defend a particular target and the opposing CiC assigns a 20+ squad to attack it, such is life.

[WxMan]

Not at all. You don’t know the exact:


Time of the attack

The attack must be made by T+60. Distance to target and type of aircraft can narrow this window down to within 10 minutes.

Altitude of the attackers.

An altitude cap has been in place for the last few FSOs. So first of all you will know the altitude of the attack will be below that. Again distance to target, the T+60 rule, and type of attacking aircraft will allow you to approximate the altitude. Besides most defenders will climb to maximum altitude. If a Squad CO decides to use scouts they can determine altitude of the attack.

Direction of the attack.

True in about 50% of the FSO's. The other half, especially on large maps, distance to target and the T+60 rule will limit the option of the attackers, giving the defenders a good indication of the direction of the attack. In addition, the location of active enemy fields in the write up will give a very good indication of the direction of the attack, given time and distance.

Plane type attacking.

Again the write up for the FSO spells out the aircraft to be used. The T+60 bombs on target rule, defines that a portion of the attack, if not the entire force will be committed to air to ground operations. The only variable here is whether it will be JABO or high level bombers. Again depending upon the target and the map, a good Squad CO can make a highly educated guess of what that attack will consist of.

Number of attackers.

Given the number of targets that must be defended and/or attacked, a very simple arithmetic average will give you a good approximation of the attacking force.  

Plenty of unknowns.

As you can see from my responses above, IMHO not so.

I am looking at the number of squads assigned to a target, not the number of players attacking a target. If a CiC assigns a small single squad (4-6) to defend a particular target and the opposing CiC assigns a 20+ squad to attack it, such is life.

There is the squad size attack/defend rule, which states that a minimum of 7-10 aircraft must either attack or defend, but I agree with your final statement.

Since the announcement of the new rule, I have devised at least 3 ways to follow the letter of the rule, but not its intent. My biggest concern is whether the CM's will judge any action on what is written, .....or why it was written. I fear the latter, for all it will do will be to produce more restrictive rules.

[akbmzawy]

As Bomber Lead many times I understand the the intent of the T+ 60 intent.

However it really limits the direction and altitude bombers can approach their targets.

Defending fighters can guess where and when the attack will come from and the time.

So to me personally this within itself takes the guessing away from the defenders.

I would say abolish the T+ 60 rule and be more able to plan routes more accordingly to fuel burn. If we can come in undected and drop eggs on our return trip home we dont have to do a 180 degree turn for RTB to face the onslaught of fighters. We all want to survive and feel good about being able to have our choice. I know this wont happen but its my 2 cents.

[daddog]

Many of your arguments go beyond your displeasure with the new rule, but are critical of the way we have been designing FSO for years.  If all of what you say is true then you should be able to design CiC orders that will completely predict what the other CiC will do and you would win every single time with few losses on your side. That has not been the case with anyone.

The attack must be made by T+60. Distance to target and type of aircraft can narrow this window down to within 10 minutes.

The distance to target could also make it a 40 or 50 minute window. That rule has been around for years.

An altitude cap has been in place for the last few FSOs. So first of all you will know the altitude of the attack will be below that.

Alt caps well above 20k. They could come in NOE. We have air starts in some of our maps so the T+60 might not make a difference in some designs.

Again distance to target, the T+60 rule, and type of attacking aircraft will allow you to approximate the altitude. Besides most defenders will climb to maximum altitude. If a Squad CO decides to use scouts they can determine altitude of the attack.

Type of aircraft you can approximate the alt?  Baloney. We have many aircraft that could come in at 20k or 1k. Yes most defenders will climb to max alt. Who would not?  You can drop from 20k to the deck a lot faster than you can climb from 1k to 20k. Scouts? Sure most of us use scouts. Some times they are spotted some times they are not.

True in about 50% of the FSO's. The other half, especially on large maps, distance to target and the T+60 rule will limit the option of the attackers, giving the defenders a good indication of the direction of the attack. In addition, the location of active enemy fields in the write up will give a very good indication of the direction of the attack, given time and distance.

Yup. Some times due to radar or distance it is easer to guess where the attack will come from. Just depends on the design.

Again the write up for the FSO spells out the aircraft to be used. The T+60 bombs on target rule, defines that a portion of the attack, if not the entire force will be committed to air to ground operations. The only variable here is whether it will be JABO or high level bombers. Again depending upon the target and the map, a good Squad CO can make a highly educated guess of what that attack will consist of.

Of course FSO spells out what AC are to be used.  That has not changed. You want the late war MA? Attacks not just NOE or high alt. Some FSO's have had fighter sweeps.

Given the number of targets that must be defended and/or attacked, a very simple arithmetic average will give you a good approximation of the attacking force.

Again that has not changed, has always been that way, but squads range from 4-6 to nearly 30. Can’t always tell how many will arrive, only now we will not allow a side so mass 120 players to steam roll three or four targets.

As you can see from my responses above, IMHO not so.

I guess we just have to disagree. My job apart from managing the FSO team is to make FSO a balanced and fun event for all involved. Not everyone will agree with what I decide to do, but IMHO it will in the long run improve the game play for squads. As players push the envelope in designs it is only natural that the CM's adjust as necessary to continue giving the events community reasonably balanced game play.

[Dantoo]

I think the Weatherman has expressed my view better than any words I could use.  I will be delegating future responsibilities in planning in future.  The space that was there now seems entirely empty.

[AKKuya]

The FSO Rules in question are concerning the mininum strike and defensive requirements coupled with the cap on time allowed with the restictions on altitude in FSO Frame Special Rules.

Squad Operations Frame CiC:

- Read and understand all the rules as they pertain to the current event.

- Receive and review the frame objectives as sent by Admin CM and follow the steps for the Frame CiC.'s.

- Insure that squadron C.O.’s have received their orders by e-mail, no later than Wednesday night prior to the Friday night Squad Operations.  

- It is the responsibility of the Frame C.O. to insure orders were received by the squad C.O.’s.

- Frame CiC's must assign squads to hit all targets within the first hour of the frame.

- Frame CiC.’s must assign squads to defend all targets during the first hour.

- CICs shall not organize a mission with orders to attack more than one objective in succession.  More simply stated, one objective, one mission.  If there are 8 offensive objectives for one side during a frame, the CIC shall ensure that there are eight attack missions, each assigned to attack a single objective.  This rule is intended to prevent CICs from overwhelming the defenders of a single target. For example, a large combined force of 60 aircraft attacking three bases that are each singly defended by a squad of 15 or 20. Please see the following examples.
http://ahevents.org/fso-related/cic-example-orders.html

- If in any doubt that your orders are within the rules of FSO contact the Admin CM.

- After initial attacks are made in compliance with the T+60 rule follow up attacks are allowed and maybe conducted by the CIC.
- The "aircraft of interest" for each squadron should be taken into consideration when aircraft are assigned.

- All squads may split, but only into 2 different AC. squads must have the same objective. Squads may not be split into 2 different groups to attack 2 different targets. They may fly a bomber with escort role, or 2 different fighters in the same squad to escort another squads bombers. etc. Unnecessary splitting is to be avoided.

*In real life you never plan for a fair fight, but this is a game and as CM’s we are here to give the events community fun and balanced play, with a dash of history and a touch of reality.



The issue I have been keeping track of is what has been influencing the other issues at the same time.  These rules that have caused this issue to spring forwars was not done intentionally.  The rules were created with the intent of "allowing everone the oppurtunity to see action".  The main issue has been the T+60 rule.

This rule has been created for positive reasons, however the same rule has caused a detriment to the FSO experience unintentionally.  The old theory vs. practicality predictament.

You might as well just turn the dar on.   What I felt that FSO provided at one time was the anticipation of the unexpected. While attacking or defending a target you would have to plan for contingencies whether at the CiC or squad level. Now every frame, every mission will be just like the last. Forget that the fact that the average engagement for the two hour period of FSO is 10 minutes or less. If somebody is looking for constant action, then they should've stayed in the MA


So what is the definition of overwhelming force. 1.5 v 1, 2 v 1, 3 v 1? Remember, we're talking a single target and the intent of the rule. I suspect It's another ridiculous ruling that will eventually come. Also will it work in reverse? What happens if only 7 attack 14 or 21 defenders. What will the ruling be then? Will other rules come out limiting the maximum squad for defense as well as offense? I forsee the "intent" of this rule only leading to more whines and additional problems for the FSO Legal Team.

My squadmate has summed this up in a nutshell quite simply.  500 players take off at one time.  Each side, squad, and player knows one thing.  Everything MUST happen by T+60 or the penalties start flying.  Then, when someone happens to fly around for 2 hours without seeing the enemy or when someone is shot down after 20 minutes into the FSO, the word FOUL is cried somewhere along the lines and the hindsight 20/20 club springs into action.

This is a game.  We do this for the recreation and fun.  But, isn't this particular event supposed to be about re-creating the battles in the first place.  Isn't this about maybe the history's winner might lose?  The only way for this to happen is to allow the possibility for that to happen.  That way is to take away the T+60 rule and the mininum strike and defenders rule.  These rules are hampering the unexpectedness of the event.

I understand the reasons why they were put in place.  A good theorical approach to a fluid situation.  This is the reason why it's become detrimental.

I'm going to use the Battle of Brittain map for an example.  Allied bombers have to hit 5 targets while the Axis bombers have to hit 4 targets.  Each target is assigned a dedicated strike force and a defensive force.  9 strike forces are supposed to fly 9 different routes with a few flying together but seperating at pre-arranged coordinates.  Bombers don't climb fast.  They are slow.  Rushing them to a target before T+60 without them getting into proper altitude of 22,000 ft and proper line ups on the targets, makes them one word.  SKEET!!!

All this has done, has made the fighter jockeys able to POUNCE on the strike groups.  Escorts have little chance to defend.  Furballs erupt in favor of the defenders save isolated instances.  This has resulted in squads detesting bomber assignments due to the "We're going on a suicide mission, why bother?"

There are no REAL surprise attacks anymore.  With the T+60 rule, a surprise attack at 30 minutes?  This rule has created a new norm for the FSO's.  Each FSO is a one strike event and all is done.  Bases being used and allowed for re-arm have such a distance between them that second strikes are basically non-existent save isolated incidents.  Two years ago, second strikes with bombers allowed action for the entire two hours.

It was a question about being in the right place at the right time.  Just like in real life.

FSO's are the greatest special events in the game outside the MA's with the squad.  Lately, the FSO has become very close to the MA in respect to the one strike only part.  In the MA's, squads launch out of a single airfield loaded for bear and hit one target.  Level the target and either capture the field or RTB.  The latter part where the similarity to the FSO comes in with RTB.

What I see now is players launch at the same time during FSO.  Some players get shot down early and either ride backseat with their squaddies or go back to the MA's.  Strike packages hit targets before T+60 (No surprise) and players shot down then either stay with swuaddies or head to MA's.  Strike package survivors RTB.  No second strike anymore so defender survivors land and tower out and head to MA's.  Strike package survivors land at their airfields and tower out before heading to MA's.

Result: The event is usually done for 200-350 players before T+60.  We might as well just stay in the MA's and do a multi-squad hit-n-run.  Where is the difference?

CIC's should not have to be hampered with these rules.  Every squad that signs up for this event is aware that on a few frames a year.  Either they are jumped 20 minutes into the Frame and be sitting in the tower or flying around for 2 hours without seeing any RED GUYS.

This is the element of chance.  The fortunes of war. etc.

There is no longer an element of true surprise or chance.  FSO is like an assembly line with 500 players heading to the meatgrinder.  How many squads will continue this route before deciding to quit?

This is my IMHO of what is happening and where it's going.

  

[daddog]

I received a PM from a player asking why some are getting so 'tweaked' (my words not his) about the change.

I replied that in a way it is a good thing. Shows they are passionate about FSO.

So much of what is posted is a straw man. Example.

Either they are jumped 20 minutes into the Frame and be sitting in the tower or flying around for 2 hours without seeing any RED GUYS.

If this was true we would not be having around 500 players attending every week. How do you get jumped 20 minutes into the frame unless your in a fat, fully loaded bomber heading directly for an enemy field three sectors away? That is just stupid and they deserve to be jumped and have their night over in 20 minutes. Oh, I guess they did not have any escort either.

How do you fly around for 2 hours without seeing any red guys? That ONLY happens when:
1. The CiC sent out FUBAR orders.
2. A squad ignores the T+60 rule (that some want me to remove and how does that make any sense?)
3. A squad is a no-show.

And none of the above are due to a flawed design in FSO.

By removing the T+60 rule and fighters circle a field for an hour and fifty minutes waiting for the attack to come. What fun is that? I guess some thinks it adds to the realism not knowing if they will circle the field for 20 minutes or 2 hours.

I will never take away the T+60 rule. Frankly it was and is one of the cornerstones to the success of FSO. Some of what you suggest hedges into the Scenario realm. FSO is not a Scenario, never will be.