Numbers and The Perceived Need for Action

[AKRaider]

I am responding to the aggregate threads of late.  I am not representing my squadron with these remarks.

Unique perspectives are wanted here, I think.

I have been cheerfully learning planning and logistics from my Arabian Knights squadron mates for a little over 6 FSO’s.  For September (and the remainder of football season) I planned but did not fly in our FSO activity.
 
While planning and not flying, it struck me that FSO, by virtue of rules and culture, seemed stale.  Flying the missions I helped plan distracted me from the “formula” that our rules and culture have bought us to.  We seem to have the same strategic bombing element.  We have the same defense element.  We have the same ground attack element.  We fly from distances to suit a 60-minute attack rule.  We use the same large variety of aircraft.   

Our rules and culture were hard-won over time, and should not be lightly thrown about.  There are years of remedies against ‘gaming the game’ in them and our culture is a point of pride for many who have been there from the beginning.

Where is our blind spot then?

Numbers of participants – the very problem we are proposing to solve.

You’ve read that our numbers are down.  There have been many very good reasons presented for that in this forum.  At the top is a reduction of numbers in the game generally.  There’s a startling unemployment problem world-wide.  We are not going to solve that.

Recommendation:  We have “Snapshots” in the CM inventory of fun stuff.  Let’s re-use or re-package them to suit our smaller numbers.  I am proposing that we at least explore the possibility using a snapshot scenario, or a combination of snapshot scenarios in an FSO frame.  Snapshots provide an avenue to re-use rather than reinvent a new type of FSO.

The hierarchy won’t change much, but for the sake of comfort, it could look like this:
Theater – sector - historical timeframe and actual events – missions  (at the snapshot level) – assets (aircraft/ground vehicles) – squadron-level planning

Conclusion:  Smaller numbers is our change driver.  It is not the problem we are trying to solve.  We have to respond to smaller numbers  without tossing out our knowledge base.  We have smaller numbers so let’s use snapshots as building blocks to create FSO events on a smaller scale while increasing the local intensity of action.

This is a seed thought.  Can the rest of you make it into a good idea?


   

[Stampf]

Well thought out.

Had me right up to "ground vehicles".

Can tell you plainly, JG11 won't support, endorse, or fully participate in any more frames involving ground vehicles in FSO.  Even as a second life filler, anyone who says they did not adversely effect late frame air action this past month is kidding themselves.

FSO - Squadron Ops.  Keep the tanks out if you want to even sustain the numbers we have now.

[DaCoon]

I have been flying FSO for about a year and a half. The one thing that was probably the biggest draw to it for me is the fact that it is a structured event. Not like the melee that is the MAs, or the sometimes lack of coordination with the regular snapshot events. I've flown in scenarios that weren't the best planned also. I fly in a lot of those events. I'm only saying that for me FSO is the better of the events mostly because of the effort that goes into it by not only the CMs but everyone who plans and flies on Friday night.


       P.S.  +1 on keeping GVs out of it.       

[33Vortex]

Agreed, keep GVs out of FSO. There are GV events for those who like it. There are also other games much more immersive in that aspect. Aces High is primarily about simulating air combat and at that it's probably the best one available on the market. Let's not lower the standards in that regard by mixing a bad game element with a good one.

[SlipKnt]

I agree about keeping GVs out as a standard.

Maybe every 6 months or so would be cool but as a standard, I agree.

Also, considering the numbers are down as of late, keep in mind that Summer is almost over.  There is a chance that we will see the numbers start to go up in November and stay up until possibly April or May.  May not be as big as years past, but I agree that the current economy plays a part of it.

I think that is the trend.

Not a bad idea regarding snapshot, but instead of snapshot style, keep FSO as is regarding Objectives in advance.  And side planning as we do it right now.

The 2 over / 2 under rule is the one thing I am wondering could be adjusted to 4 over / 2 under.  Adding the 2 over what is already allowed may give some squads opportunity to bring in other guys / gals from the MAs to try it out and potentially recruit more people to participate in FSO. 

In the beginning for VF15, the 325th was nice enough to bring us on for 6 to 10 months until we were able to get on our feet.  Our ghuys absolutely love FSO now.  But, within the squad, you need a really strong core groups of leaders to carry on with participation on things that go on behind the scenes.  Viper61 did that for us and that is how I learned.  Now, VF15 has a good core group.  Thanks to the teachings of Viper61 and support we received from all of the 325th. 

I guess the point I am trying to make here, is that all active squads in FSO should be good role models and recruit new squads to try it out.  Mentor the new squad leaqdership.  It should pay off long term.

(here is my shout out) - <<S>> to 325th and Viper61 for getting VF15 started and interested in FSO.  You guys are really great mentors.

VF15 is willing to do the same for any squad interested in FSO.

[perdue3]

Well thought out.

Had me right up to "ground vehicles".

Can tell you plainly, JG11 won't support, endorse, or fully participate in any more frames involving ground vehicles in FSO.  Even as a second life filler, anyone who says they did not adversely effect late frame air action this past month is kidding themselves.

FSO - Squadron Ops.  Keep the tanks out if you want to even sustain the numbers we have now.

Nicely done Stampf.

[WxMan]

Well thought out.

Had me right up to "ground vehicles".

Can tell you plainly, JG11 won't support, endorse, or fully participate in any more frames involving ground vehicles in FSO.  Even as a second life filler, anyone who says they did not adversely effect late frame air action this past month is kidding themselves.

FSO - Squadron Ops.  Keep the tanks out if you want to even sustain the numbers we have now.

The OP (a squad mate) mentioned nothing about GV's. The term used was "ground attack" and I believe he was refering to JABO's.  As a participant over numerous FSO the past 3 years, he knows that GV's are used minimally for the event.  Don't be distracted from the original message by something that was not said.

[Stampf]

The OP (a squad mate) mentioned nothing about GV's. The term used was "ground attack" and I believe he was refering to JABO's.  As a participant over numerous FSO the past 3 years, he knows that GV's are used minimally for the event.  Don't be distracted from the original message by something that was not said.

The hierarchy won’t change much, but for the sake of comfort, it could look like this:
Theater – sector - historical timeframe and actual events – missions  (at the snapshot level) – assets (aircraft/ground vehicles) – squadron-level planning

  

 

[WxMan]

  I stand corrected.

[Stampf]

No biggie.

You know I am a fan of the AK's, and respect their long standing FSO record.

I applaud Raider for his efforts and contributions.

[AKP]

I think that sounds like a good idea...  Snapshot scenarios often have fewer objectives (both offense and defense) than an FSO frame does.  You could incorporate those types of scenarios into FSO frames, and still keep the FSO rules and setup.

I mentioned something like this in another post, like having each frame represent a different battle in a specific time period.  Would work for any theatre...  European, African, Pacific.

Keeping it from becoming stale, and not the same thing over and over again, I think is the key.

And I also agree on keeping the GV's out... maybe now and then in ONE FRAME as a second life... but not every frame of an FSO. 

[AKP]

Oh.... I also think that gains and losses based on the outcome of the previous frame adds to the experience of FSO.  The few times we have done that, it makes FSO more than just about your mission... its about the objectives of the whole side.   Examples are: losing or gaining bases based on the outcome of the previous frame / losing or gaining aircraft based on the outcome of the previous frame... etc.

[branch37]

The only real complaint I have had with FSO as of late is the assignment of aircraft.  In "Across The Rhine" VF-17 was assigned Mosquito 16s, and Spit16s both of which were of limited availability.  We requested P-38/47s both of which were not limited.  I cant understand why a squad shouldnt get what they request if there is no maximum number of said aircraft that can be assigned, and give the spits and mossies to squads that requested them.  I say this because I feel that we are much more experienced in the American rides listed above than the spits that we fly only when assigned them in FSO.  This is not meant to be an attack against any CiC, and rest assured that we will do our best in whatever airframe we are assigned.  This was just an observation on my end. 

And +1 on no GVs

[AKRaider]

Thanks for the feedback.

Loud and clear on the GV's.  I didn't know the sentiment was so strong on that.  I would love to kill moving columns of GV's though.  Even if they were AI vehicles pressing on a city objective over the course of 120 minutes.

I really liked the Frame-to-Frame tactical objectives in the Sicily FSO a few months back. (thanks AKP)

The overall idea is to scale our FSO events to the anticipated number of pilots.  My belief is that this will allow us some variability and innovation in tactics.  Snapshots seem to be another rich resource that would not have to be re-invented.

Again, thanks for taking a sober look at a seed thought.  If it has merit, the CM staff will take your inputs and mine and 'figure it out'.  If not, well, we'll think of something else.

Raider

[Squire]

Just thought I would reply to a few issues:

The last 5 years worth of FSOs (59) have seen only 7 setups with GVs. Thats not quite 1 in 6 in five years. They are rare. That being said I realise there are some that like the odd GV battle at T+something...and there are those that don't like them at all. FSO is about air combat campaigns in WW2 and that focus will not change but im not going to be telling the designers that they can never have GVs in a setup. Will that change? maybe. I think it needs some more discussion before a blanket ban. I am opposed to a design that would have initial assignments of a squad into GVs.

Player #s. We are close to our 2010 #s in FSO from last year. The 2008 recession has hit our event there is no question. I do not see any crisis in our numbers though. FSO remains the best attended SEA event in Aces High starting from less than 100 (when it was launched as "Tour of Duty") to what we have now @350-375 per frame currently. The current poll re the start time is not about participation levels. Its about the East Coast players having to stay up untill 1:00 AM on a weeknight when they got up for work or school at 7:00 AM the previous morning. Its an issue I promised to look at so im asking the question in the poll to get a sense of the opinions out there.

Aircraft assignments. Thats up to the CiC. I think everybody gets to fly their favorite ride at some point? but we are covering most of WW2 and sometimes thats just not going to be possible. We can't realistically have squads dictate to the CiC what ride they will fly. We do encourage CiCs to assign preferred rides whenever possible. Absolutely.

Squad over/under participation levels. We have to try and ensure one side does not have a large #s advantage past what the design might have called for. Thats not easy to do in an event where squad levels can vary with a player base in the hundreds. Increasing the "over" to 4 would possibly swing the ratios even wider from frame to frame. Recruit new players into your squads and then adjust your commited numbers is really the best way to manage this.