What to do after T+60 and no action

[kilo2]

We had 4 squads there with good communication and not one reported anything other than maybe 8 heavy F4us. It was not a sneak its was a small attack. We had people right over the base when it was hit and it was a few low cons not worth diving for. We were holding alt for a main attack that never came. It seemed gamey and made for a long boring night.

[ImADot]

Seems to me "8 heavy F4Us" constitutes a "squad-sized element with ords", which would fulfill the rule about attacking with ords by a credible force.  Perhaps the Allied CiC decided that target was not worth a large strike force but the Axis CiC did?

[ghostdancer]

Remember the Allies also had significantly less pilots assigned to them. This was so that the Axis would have more planes to deal with the B29 threat.

I know A38 was hit by around 16 F4Us since I was one of them. It was hairy there and we got shredded by the Axis defenders.

[Krusty]

Very interesting topic of discussion. I agree you can't have attacking CO tell the CM there won't be an attack, for the reasons already stated (fluidity of combat, etc) but also because it leaves things open to severe gaming the game.

Attacker tells Defender "We're not going to hit A32. We got wiped out. Reassign units for more action as you see fit"

Then secretly he really means "I have 15 bombers about 20 minutes out and they have no escorts, please let me in unopposed"...

You can see how it would be abused, no?


Also:

IN,

You don't understand what that means and have not used it correctly.

[j500ss]

Seems to me "8 heavy F4Us" constitutes a "squad-sized element with ords", which would fulfill the rule about attacking with ords by a credible force.  Perhaps the Allied CiC decided that target was not worth a large strike force but the Axis CiC did?

I'm not sure how many hog's attacked the base in question, if it was 8, they did little damage from what I saw.  All I ever heard was " a couple"   I think your second line hit the nail square Dot, just seems to me that is what probably happened.

[Nefarious]

Looking into the event in question, it appears that one of the two squads that were tasked with A2 attacked the wrong target.

Sometimes orders get read wrong which leads to issues like the defenders at A2 seeing very little or no action. The only thing I can add about this instance is make sure you double and triple check your orders and confirm it with the CIC before the Frame starts to prevent problems like this in the future.

A2 was still attacked and the CIC allocated enough of his forces to attack A2, The failure of the squad to attack A2 was completely accidental therefore no penalty will be given.

[noTch]

Also:

You don't understand what that means and have not used it correctly.

Touche, Mr Krusty. You got me. I really, honestly don't know what that means.  No sarcasm intended, I don't. I used it wrong & you did a great job of embarrassing me ~S~
In retrospect I tried to use it to say, since I didn't put myself out there on the board about this, that I would merely chime in. I feel like I used a cuss word at the wrong time & everyone is looking at me  

Moving on. I have to concede to WxMan:

Why all the wrangling about contacting this guy or that guy.

The CM's made a rule, many years ago. All targets must be attacked by T+60. Seems simple enough to me.  The premise has been if the target was not attacked by the deadline, no points would be allowed for any damage and a penalty would be assessed, no matter what the reason.  Seems it is a win for the defenders of that target who then can go hunting or be reassigned by their CiC.

Stop making this more difficult than it has to be. Stop all the lawyering.

 
Again it is the simple solutions that evade us.  This is a very potent statement because it is full of truths.    

[Krusty]

Notch: see PM

Wxman: The point of the T+60 rule, the very spirit of the event, is to have opposing sides meet in combat. They would wait, hem and haw, fly circles, and wait for it to be an unopposed target. Well the word of the rule is as you stated, but if the spirit of the rule is otherwise broken you are very much in the right to bring it up in discussion.

The discussion was about wasting time, never seeing the enemy, having a boring time.

Honestly: The scores are nice, but that's not what brings 500 people back every week. It's the experience they have that week that does this. If that experience turns to 90% waiting with no action, then RTB and end of frame, it doesn't matter if your team wins or not. it gets old.


While I agree the original suggestion doesn't work, I would strongly say it's all worth a good discussion. It shouldn't just be ignored because a rule was set in places many years back. I'm not disagreeing with that rule, and in fact I'm agreeing with it. However a rule is put in place only when the unspoken rules need to be spoken (i.e. chutes killing on hotpads). Things will always adapt and change and rules will need to be written, re-written, removed, or updated depending on those.

[kilo2]

I also do not mean 8 planes together either there was 4 at about half way. There was maybe 2 low and 2 just wandering through. It was terrible there was no continuity between them and we had 3 full squads just chillin burning gas waiting for some FSO action.

[noTch]

The discussion was about wasting time, never seeing the enemy, having a boring time.

Honestly: The scores are nice, but that's not what brings 500 people back every week. It's the experience they have that week that does this. If that experience turns to 90% waiting with no action, then RTB and end of frame, it doesn't matter if your team wins or not. it gets old.

Agreed!
How can we keep this from happening?

[ImADot]

Agreed!
How can we keep this from happening?

Perhaps FSO squads could actually read their orders when they come out, instead of logging in 10 minutes before liftoff and ask "what are we doing?".  I know the majority of squads try to conduct themselves with a certain level of involvement and come fully prepared.  Unfortunately, there are enough that do not; which makes for situations like what prompted this thread.

[perdue3]

Spikes that depends. If -only- one plane was assigned to hit the base that is a rules violation. If a credible attack force was assigned and only 1 plane or 2 planes did damage to the base but snuck in and were not seen that is not a violation. Or if other squads slaughtered the attack force and only a few got through again it would be credible. As you point out this can happen when multiple squads are assigned to defend a single base. One of those squads could engage while others don't for various reasons.

Here's what I saw at A2:

4-6 F4Us fly to base, 2 dove to the base and bombed a hangar and a radar. That was the end. The F4U's flew South, intercepted and died. It was over.

[Spikes]

Then maybe there should be less targets. BoG was fun, especially the road to Berlin in Frame 2. Just goes to show it's possible to have 400 people in 4 sectors.

[Nefarious]

Like I mentioned on page 1.

A credible force was allocated to strike A2. Unfortunately the larger of the two squads attacked the wrong target.

[WxMan]

Notch: see PM

Wxman: The point of the T+60 rule, the very spirit of the event, is to have opposing sides meet in combat. They would wait, hem and haw, fly circles, and wait for it to be an unopposed target. Well the word of the rule is as you stated, but if the spirit of the rule is otherwise broken you are very much in the right to bring it up in discussion.

The discussion was about wasting time, never seeing the enemy, having a boring time.

Honestly: The scores are nice, but that's not what brings 500 people back every week. It's the experience they have that week that does this. If that experience turns to 90% waiting with no action, then RTB and end of frame, it doesn't matter if your team wins or not. it gets old.


While I agree the original suggestion doesn't work, I would strongly say it's all worth a good discussion. It shouldn't just be ignored because a rule was set in places many years back. I'm not disagreeing with that rule, and in fact I'm agreeing with it. However a rule is put in place only when the unspoken rules need to be spoken (i.e. chutes killing on hotpads). Things will always adapt and change and rules will need to be written, re-written, removed, or updated depending on those.

I have a problem with the "spirit" of any rule as it leaves it up to anybodys interpretation. From your post your "spirit" of the rule is certainly different from mine. Only a lawyer or judge can make a determination. Certainly we don't need that here. Why make things more complicated.  The number of times this subject occurs  is so infrequent, do we have to change the whole proceeding for it and add a bunch of exceptions?