Please note the Ship Placement Rules

[Nefarious]

You may have noticed the TF's being placed somewhat differently this FSO.

As a reminder, TF's in this FSO will start at the intersection of grids. They will be free to move anywhere they want to under the direction of the CIC or TF Commander appointed by the CIC.

This was done in an effort to allow for a little more mystery as to where the ships might be, instead of being confined to 1 grid and knowing exactly where they are, the ships are allowed to sail where ever they can within the time frame of the event. Still keeping the CV in a manageable position for the attacker to locate within 1 hour.

Good luck this Friday <S>

[snakeplissken]

Your Avatar says "Is it Friday Comrade?"  Admins are weird people.  Ok, I am down with that!  Come on Friday! 

[Trainee]

You may have noticed the TF's being placed somewhat differently this FSO.

As a reminder, TF's in this FSO will start at the intersection of grids. They will be free to move anywhere they want to under the direction of the CIC or TF Commander appointed by the CIC.

This was done in an effort to allow for a little more mystery as to where the ships might be, instead of being confined to 1 grid and knowing exactly where they are, the ships are allowed to sail where ever they can within the time frame of the event. Still keeping the CV in a manageable position for the attacker to locate within 1 hour.

Good luck this Friday <S>

Noted Sir!

[Devil 505]

Sorry Nef, but this is a terrible idea. There are 14 CV groups surrounding the Islands, some very close to one another. What's to prevent the Allied CiC from grouping multiple CVs together in an attempt to confuse the attack force and bolster ack fields, as well as providing information as to the approach of the arttack? The  FSO standard has always been to have a reasonable area for each individual CV grou to occupy. Hunting and destroying a CV group is difficult enough and you have made it exponentially more difficult for no good reason. Please consider making a change before the event.

Thanks.

[amulford]

I respectfully disagree.  The Axis already has a HUGE advantage in possible points available to them.  What is wrong with their having to work a little to earn them?

[Nefarious]

Sorry Nef, but this is a terrible idea. There are 14 CV groups surrounding the Islands, some very close to one another. What's to prevent the Allied CiC from grouping multiple CVs together in an attempt to confuse the attack force and bolster ack fields, as well as providing information as to the approach of the arttack? The  FSO standard has always been to have a reasonable area for each individual CV grou to occupy. Hunting and destroying a CV group is difficult enough and you have made it exponentially more difficult for no good reason. Please consider making a change before the event.

Thanks.

CV's can't be grouped together at the start of the frame, they must start in their designated grid crosses. The distances involved with the Allied/Axis Objective CV's in Frame 1 should make it difficult for the objective and non-objective TF's to group up and sail together in 1 hour in an attempt to bolster defenses.

If it does pose an issue during or after frame 1, you can bet I will make some changes for frame 2.

This change was brought about by comments and suggestions I received during my last FSO, I'm just trying to incorporate the ideas of people who regularly participate in an effort to improve game play.

[Trainee]

The primary concern I have is that if we get two TF's in the same grid and the wrong one gets attacked are we going to be penalized? It would be difficult to distinguish one from the other. Their course or heading may be the only indicator we would have.

[Nefarious]

The primary concern I have is that if we get two TF's in the same grid and the wrong one gets attacked are we going to be penalized? It would be difficult to distinguish one from the other. Their course or heading may be the only indicator we would have.

Shouldn't be an issue with any objectives in Frame 1 save TF 5 and 6. I will have the setup move TF6 one more grid away from TF5 before launch.

I can see the concerns for blending TFs I will make it so that is impossible.

[Trainee]

We have the bloodhounds on standby.
Good enough for me.
Lets fly!!

[Devil 505]

Shouldn't be an issue with any objectives in Frame 1 save TF 5 and 6. I will have the setup move TF6 one more grid away from TF5 before launch.

I can see the concerns for blending TFs I will make it so that is impossible.

Thiat will help a bunch, Nef. Thanks.

[amulford]

Well what the hell, why don't we just confine them to the exact starting point and not let them move at all???  I mean, Heaven FORBID, making it challenging.

OK, since we are granting requests, I want to request that the KI-67's have an operational ceiling of no higher than 15,000 feet.  I mean, since we are granting requests by the Axis to change the challenge based on "it's unfair because they might...",  It should stand to reason that the Allies be given the same consideration.  

I'm sorry, but I respectfully request that the setup remain EXACTLY how it is.  

Good God man, this is getting ridiculous.  What's it going to be the next time? Dar bar and dot dar?.  Jeezus...

[amulford]

Oh, by the way.  I am the Allied CiC, and for the record, While that idea entered my mind, I summarily dismissed it as an absolutely horrific idea.  We are already challenged enough by being limited to carrier ops, I be damned if I am going to further hamper our boys by limiting what would be available to them by bunching them up and making it easier sink them.

[Nefarious]

Well what the hell, why don't we just confine them to the exact starting point and not let them move at all???  I mean, Heaven FORBID, making it challenging.

OK, since we are granting requests, I want to request that the KI-67's have an operational ceiling of no higher than 15,000 feet.  I mean, since we are granting requests by the Axis to change the challenge based on "it's unfair because they might...",  It should stand to reason that the Allies be given the same consideration.  

I'm sorry, but I respectfully request that the setup remain EXACTLY how it is.  

Good God man, this is getting ridiculous.  

Nothing really changed inside the scope of the objectives. TF5 (The Objective) will start exactly where its supposed to start as per my Objectives.

I am just moving TF6 1 more sector away from it. Devil505 and Trainee make valid points. If there are two CV's in the objective area, how does the attacker know which one is the objective and which one isn't. It would also be a force multiplier by putting more ACK into the air for the Axis.

The move of TF6 (Not an Objective) has no bearing on game play and prevents the Allies by doubling up the objective CVs.

Oh, by the way.  I am the Allied CiC, and for the record, While that idea entered my mind, I summarily dismissed it as an absolutely horrific idea.  We are already challenged enough by being limited to carrier ops, I be damned if I am going to further hamper our boys by limiting what would be available to them by bunching them up and making it easier sink them.

 

[amulford]

I still request the operational ceiling for the Betties.  You are granting requests to make it easier for them.  What is good for the goose is good for the gander.  We are already challenged by the nature of our operations.

They have an advantage of more potential points.  They have the advantage of their TF starting within ONe grid of TWO land based airfields.  Ack multiplier??? Have you looked at the placement of A23?

Sorry Nef, this is wrong and for the record I formally protest.  Actually, I call BULLtoejam. 

[Nefarious]

I still request the operational ceiling for the Betties.  You are granting requests to make it easier for them.  What is good for the goose is good for the gander.  We are already challenged by the nature of our operations.

They have an advantage of more potential points.  They have the advantage of their TF starting within ONe grid of TWO land based airfields.  Ack multiplier??? Have you looked at the placement of A23?

Sorry Nef, this is wrong and for the record I formally protest.  Actually, I call BULLtoejam. 

The main reason for the decision is the fact they can conceal the identity of the true objective by blending the task forces together. Thats shading the task force objective and really unfair as no points will be awarded to non-objectives destroyed or sunk.