Invalid Radar Targets

[AKKuya]

Last frame was an experimental one with the radar in the control towers enabling downed pilots to act a forward air controllers.  That made quite the difference on the Axis side.  Many Axis pilots were directed to enemy locations and were able to seek and destroy. 

The question is are the radar towers in non-target airfields and bases open to attack?  The Allied attacks made a directed effort to disable as many as they could with forward fighter sweeps.

This will require a rule issue on non-target radar towers.  And, if they are deemed invaled like all other non-target areas then should they be assessed with penalty points for taking them down?

[canacka]

IMO, I think that non-target bases should be untouched.  I feel it represents bases that are not known by the other sides intelligence such as locations of gv's, radar stations, etc.  I don't think in WWII, both sides got together and gave them locations of all their resources.  Like I said, in my opinion.

[AKP]

As Allied CiC for this frame, I was told I COULD attack the radar towers at the forward bases... they just wouldnt count in our victory points total.

I knew going in that Axis radar was going to make a huge impact on how successful we were, and from the look of the logs, it did.

With that point in mind... Axis pilots were seen in all 3 frames taking out ack over allied fields so they could circle them and wait for Allied pilots coming home from strikes so they could jump them.  If ack at opposing fields can be hit for tactial reasons with no point gain, then it seems to me active radar is fair game as well.

Assigning 2 squads to act as "Trailblazers" did require me to take resources away from the main strike forces... but I think that aspect was worth it, and did what we intended.  But... there was just too much radar coverage to even try and get it all.

My concern was that the Axis CiC would stay in tower for the whole frame and watch the radar instead of flying (i know I would have)... so the decision to take out radar on route to important targets was critical.

Obviously, I was on the side that was doing the attacking, so taking out the radars was a benefit to me... but I would feel they are valid targets if the situation were reversed as well... and I would have had to react accordingly.

[RSLQK186]

PRO: basically everything AKP stated. Many a 47 and Mossi where sent in for this purpose.
CON: the other side may feel it necessary to guard non active fields. More pilots off script as it were.

But then again I feel FSO needs a little shaking up. Please consider any rule changes at a cautious pace(CM staff is usually not too hasty).

I think the use of dot is best suited for when 1 side is tasked with deffence only. BoB come to mind. Maybe allowing the CiC to assign a squad on the deffence to up at any field in a specific AC and with the option of 1 or two from several fields? Even have 1 of them stay in tower as Radar Op. You might think it goes against the 1 squad 1 mission focus of FSO, but in BoB the British scouts operate in this manner. It is a coordinated effort with Radar Control and a lot of work for the pilots. Even when all I was finding was open water, I had constant chatter from the other scouts and radar trying to fill the gaps and vector to blips.
Not that setting it on autoclimb and telling stories for the first 25 minutes doesn't have it's rewards, but the BoB scout duty was work from start to finish and a joy for me.

I think it would be an interesting addition to FSO as long as it was only twice a year or so.   
 

[daddog]

The question is are the radar towers in non-target airfields and bases open to attack?

Yes as AKP already stated, but I explained to the CiC that they would not get any points for those destroyed on fields that were not targets.

This will require a rule issue on non-target radar towers.

Not that I can see. Each Admin CM will score and have rules of their own. Always best to just check with the Admin CM if in doubt about anything.

[Saxman]

I do think that RSLQK186 has one point regarding allowing destruction of non-target base radar: Defenders may suddenly feel it necessary to protect those non-objective fields just to defend the radar. Granted, just the fact the radar is getting whacked ought to be a pretty significant clue as to where the strike package is approaching from (unless the squads hitting DAR are doing so over a wide front to throw off the defenders in that regard) but now you may not only be diluting the attack groups to deal with radar, but also drawing planes away from the defenders to protect those non-objective assets as well.

The question is, where does this become an issue for the CMs with squads going off from the frame objectives?

[AKKaz]

I can understand sending out planes to take down radar at non-targeted airfeilds in order to help neutralize it, given the option, I probably would have assigned a squadron to take care of it all myself.  But it does bring up the question of defense.  If the radar at these bases are as vital to be targeted by one side, then it is just as important for the other to keep them up as much as possible.  In such cases, the defense should have the option as well to be releived of the defense rule of keeping thise assigned against targeted bases to be able to send out a few aircraft to try and defend them.

As it stands now, the defense must stay with their assigned area of defense on targeted airfeilds until released or strike force attacks the target they are assigned to.

In frames or setups of this type, why not go with just a dar bar setup with a time delay?.... has worked well in past scenerio setups, especially in european theater in defense against massive bombing raids.  even though it may be known as to the sector a group is in, they still must be found in that sector and the time delay adds some realism as to having information passed as if spotted by ground spotters/radar controllers.

Have flown in these type setups many times, and even finding a good size strike force otw in isnt as easy as it sounds.  Especially when you are searching the sector knowing that the radar notification is 5 or 10 minutes old.

[AKP]

I think the key is that we dont use the "dot dar in the tower" feature in every FSO.  Yes... It was a nice to have for the Axis on this one.  And it added a challenge for me as the Allied planner in that without at least taking down "some" of the radar, there was absolutely no way to get through without being seen.

However, as you mentioned, I still had to hit all my assigned targets.  And... I couldn't order a squad to take down radars on the way to their assigned target either. Although, squads did have the option of detaching a plane or two to hit a nearby radar on the way in if they so chose... I just couldnt assign that to them.  What I DID do was assign two squads of 3-5 planes each, whose only orders were to takeout radar stations along 2 specific routes.

If I had assigned more squads to do that along a wider front, the strike groups would have been too watered down to be effective.

From a defense standpoint, there shouldnt be anything to keep the defending CiC from doing one or more of the following things:

1) Assign a squad or two to "Patrol Duty".  As long as all of the assigned defense areas are covered, there could be squads moving along expected ingress routes to try and catch strike groups before they hit their targets.

2) Assign a squad or two to defend several radar stations... responding as soon as they see one come under attack.

or

3) As long as there is more than one squad covering each defense target, the CiC could release specific squads to detach and  go after the squads attacking the radar stations as needed.

I think with a setup like we had this week, a defending CiC just has to be flexible.  Still keeping to the letter of the assignment, but working within it to do what he has to do.  I do think the initial attacks on the radars threw off the Axis a little... but as you saw in the logs, the Axis recovered from it very well.  A sign that the CiC and the squad CO's adapted to the tactic quickly.

What I am trying to get at... is that this set up was fun, and challenging.  But I dont think we should see it that often.  Radar wasnt that reliable, or available in every theatre during ww2.  We should still see scenarios with no radar at all, or delayed dar bar.  But when an option like this is written into the settings, I do agree that there should be more detail as to what each side can do about it.

Wow... I really didnt mean to write that much 

[dmdchief]

I am just a player in FSO but my feelings is if the radars are going to be killed by either side on the way to their targets, the radars are in fact valid targets and therefore must be defended or you are putting one side at a disadvantage from the start.  If one side is at a disadvantage from the start of the frame you can watch your numbers start to dwindle in the very next frame, nobody will want to play a game that they are pre-determined they have very little chance of winning.

Like I said I am only a player not one of you guys but since there dosen't seem to be any other players other than commanders responding here I thought I would put in my 2 cents worth.   

Thanks for all the work ya'll do
I enjoyied this fso even though in frame 2 I got discoed and it wouldn't let me back in until it was too late.
Frank Williams
ab8aac/dmdchief

[j500ss]

I'm not sure you are putting anyone at a disadvantage hitting radar at a base, reason being, you know which bases are targets for the other side.  Hitting the dar, for whatever reason, has to give some sense of route to, or away from the target.

 We were assigned the grunt factory  ( how bout those clouds there  ) in the last frame, I asked early on about downing the radar @ A34 soley for the purpsoe of getting out without tripping a radar.  We flew around it on the way to target.

Now with that said, should we be doing this, or it be allowed in every FSO, probably not.  It does however shake thing up a bit now and then, and that is good, like it or not.  Making Cic's think outside the box, trying little used tactics, making missions a little more complex, that has to be adding to the immersion that so many feel is missing from some FSO frames.

Sure, it puts some at times, at a disadvantage, but thats war gentlemen.  There will in all likely hood never be a perfect FSO,  but it sure is fun from my perspective watching the CM's and Cic's  ( players too ) trying to make it happen.  I say the more tools they have to use and tweak with, the better!

 

[DrDea]

 Plain and simple,if it can be used as a weapon against you,it is a valid target.

[AKP]

Now with that said, should we be doing this, or it be allowed in every FSO, probably not.  It does however shake thing up a bit now and then, and that is good, like it or not.  Making Cic's think outside the box, trying little used tactics, making missions a little more complex, that has to be adding to the immersion that so many feel is missing from some FSO frames.

AMEN Brotha! 

[Chapel]

I don't really see what the big deal is...

Firstly, radar blips haven't been used before, and so there wasn't a concern. Players are used to fighting and defending without their aid.
Secondly, if the attacking force wants to designate and pull pilots away from escort duty, or bombing, in order to disable radars, the defenders are going to be no worse off than they were before this option was available. Hence, not really a disadvantage.
Third, in this setup I'd have done the same thing as the allied CiC, in that the advantage was clearly in the axis favor with radar available. It prompted many a good fight, and in scenario's where both sides are attacking defending, will prove to make things QUITE interesting and a hair raising experience.

I've had experience with this, as the S3 in Warbirds was handled in this manner. You had dar blips available throughout, and even more so, the radar extended to the whole map.
Having this option engaged will only prompt more fights, not take them away. In fact it'll force CiC's to be even more creative and elaborate in their attack/defense planning.

*thumbs up*