Ok we need your help here.

[Squire]

The FSO rules exist as a result of playing through more than a decade of frames and addressing issues we found.

[captain1ma]

I think the original post goes to getting squads to keep their mininimum numbers or change them so they don't have to move a squad over to another sides,
like they had to do this month.

from that it morphed into game play..... I think it is what it is, and unless people are willing to step up and get more involved and try to bring in more people,
not much is going to change. the minute they go to one target per side, its all over. then is just a orchestrated MA. not my idea of a good time. I don't even like it now
with 2 targets per side. you cant plan like you used to, you cant sneak in like you used to. you cant make it crazy. now its find bombers and kill them or die trying or
bomb target or die trying. whatever, we're here to the end. but think long and hard before you go to a one target per side.

now back to my original thought, before my tangent. we should ALL be actively trying to recruit to get more people in the FSO, be it building your squad, or getting other
squads to come in. we need more pilots, 300 or more would be nice. where we're at now is doable, but more is better. we need squads to meet their minimums. but like some other
squads, if im over, I wont turn anyone away. I want people to play and learn to enjoy the FSO. I want to build my squad to be bigger. I want everyone to have fun.

on a side note, as CIC I look at how many pilots showed up for each squad and average them. this is so I can figure out what to expect from a squad when they show up.
if a squad averages 3 players a week, I only expect 2 to show up. if a 7-11 squad averages 6 players, that's what I expect. then its easier to figure out what squads to put into what planes. the other thing I do is look at what squads like to do. I know that if a squad always request fighters and I have to give them bombers, I expect them to come in a little short.
this is because I know there are players that would rather not show up, then fly bombers. just a fact of the game. but this all works for me and I plan for it.

anyway I think if we all just try to get our squads to show up with our assigned minimums, it will make the CM's lives a lot easier! my 2 cents.

[DH367th]

One bad frame of FSO does not mean the rules need to be retooled. CM's will be looking over what when wrong and why.

[Scca]

The FSO rules exist as a result of playing through more than a decade of frames and addressing issues we found.

Agreed. 

The problem comes when people work to comply with the written rule, not the spirit of the rule, and the event.

[SlipKnt]

Wow...

 

Objectives are sent out.

As defense or attack, the squads SHOULD work together on planning.  At launch, go according to plan.  Whether you agree or not.  Follow CiC direction per the side's orders.  That's it!

Sometimes it is really tough or even seemingly impossible.  I believe we have all been in that situation in a slow plane on attack, knowing you will likely not get away.  But at least try.

If there is a problem with the design (or appearance of it) then lets talk it out and contribute information that will help the designers improve upon it. 

But not taking assigned planes to an assigned target for the spirit of "saving the points" is rather unsportsman like.  As a registered FSO squad, we are obligated to participate.  Me personally, prefer to see the fight play out in its entirety.  I am not going to discuss strategy or tactics in this post.

But as a CM for FSO, I would like to point out that the rules are what they are.  No "spirit of".  Simple black and white.  Attack your assigned targets.  Defend your assigned targets.  Attack to occur by T plus 60.  Minimum is a squad sized force.  However, that would pertain to ALL attacking forces.  Be attacking by T plus 60.  That promotes the fight and guarantees action for everyone involved in FSO.

Come on guys.  FSO is a spirited and intelligent community.  And a great group of people I personally enjoy spending my Friday evenings with.  Please lets not get all wrapped up in BS.  Just play the game and if the design needs to be adjusted, send an email to the CM team so the designers can make necessary adjustments. 

  to all of you for participating.  And the feedback is always welcome.  We have a good thing here. 

 
SlipKnoT   

[Squire]

Could not have said it better Slipknot.

[Dawger]

Dawger, that would make attacking too easy. To cover that area, the defenders would be stretched too thin and picked off piecemeal when the attack group plows through them. The defenders need a reasonable chance to intercept the bomber stream before they drop. With a wide area to cover the bulk of the defense will almost always be out of position.

Thats why I want 100 mile radar. So defense can react and move the fight from directly over the target.

However its pretty clear that there is no serious intention to revise the current method of two targets required to be defended and attacked.

So I will keep my squad at the 4-6 committment level and hope for the best.

It does make the FSO briefing short.

Its either Fly to target and furball at T+ 50 or Orbit over target and furball at T+ 50.

[nooby52]

Set Objectives known to both sides and the T+60 rule ensure that action is had by both participating sides and within 1 hour of the start.

That is the bulk of the scripting and predictability that is part of FSO. If you removed those two items, sure it would be less predictable and scripty, but it would also increase the chances of non-action and no fighting. That is the heart of Scenario Game play.

FSO rules and regulations are for making sure there is a fight, when no fight occurs something must be looked as to why it didn't happen.

But we already have the rule that if you haven't landed at an approved base by the end of the time frame for FSO you are counted as a casualty. I think that should be enough restrictions. If one side plans poorly, then that side will suffer the consequences (i.e. if they don't make it back to base because they took a route too circuitous in order to avoid detection or combat). Maybe the rule should be T+120 or T+90? Just my 2 cents.

[Bino]

Set Objectives known to both sides and the T+60 rule ensure that action is had by both participating sides and within 1 hour of the start.

That is the bulk of the scripting and predictability that is part of FSO. If you removed those two items, sure it would be less predictable and scripty, but it would also increase the chances of non-action and no fighting. That is the heart of Scenario Game play.

FSO rules and regulations are for making sure there is a fight, when no fight occurs something must be looked as to why it didn't happen.

Amen!

The design of FSO has evolved over the years into a format that encourages action for everybody. It does not succeed for every event - obviously - but that is the intent.

IMHO, the fundamental issue we now have is low player turnout which makes some of the old-style FSO designs less effective and less fun.

[Nefarious]

IMHO, the fundamental issue we now have is low player turnout which makes some of the old-style FSO designs less effective and less fun.

Adjustments have been made over the last several FSO's. Targets have been reduced and usually are 2 vs 2, although we have done 1 vs 1.

Can't scale down FSO any further than that. With 100 per side, 2 targets vs 2 targets should on paper put 25 pilots per side, per target. 1 vs 1 increases the number to 50 vs 50.. Which are pretty big engagements.

I think that traditional minimums should be looked at and it's something I have been personally avoiding in my writeups. Forcing you to use 12 of each 5 different airframes is 60 airplanes, stretch them over 2 targets, plus minimum force requirements THEN split them between squads of different sizes and it starts to get real difficult. Minimums are necessary, but they should be relaxed to make it easier for CICs. Smaller Minimums or minimums on less airframes allows for more flexibility for assignments.

[Viper61]

  As for the Frame 2 negative comments such as a "bad" frame.  Here's my 2 cents:

        I was the AXIS CIC - My job is to make a plan with the greatest chance of victory.  Victory is scored by "points".  My job is not to ensure everyone has fun or sees endless action.  My job is to win for my side.

        I will not make a plan in which sends squads to their deaths.  I plan everything with some measurable chance of survival and always have.  Have to admit very hard in this restrictive setup.

        There were no FSO rule or special scenario rule violations by the AXIS side in the plan.  I didn't see any in the execution either.

        I watched the ebb and flow of the pilots in flight during the entire frame, it generally stayed very close right to the very end.  So the plan I issued accomplished an outcome of gaining points towards victory and guarding any serous lose of points that would end with disaster for the AXIS side.  And there was action up until H+90ish when both sides started to retire rearwards.  All goals of any CIC or planning team.

        To the comment above that I purposely planned a Frame in which to go out of my way and screw up the game play and wreck it for others.  Bunch of crap and insulting.  I plan to win and I stay within the rules.  By the way the CIC plans are almost always reviewed (or at least offered for review) prior to distribution to avoid rule violations.  And the CM is attached to the distribution list when the orders go out.  And one last note there are several CM's flying on each side and if they see a rule violation they will state it very quickly.  And this Frame was no different.

        ALLIED squads not seeing as much action as they would have liked (that really means you wanted to shot down helpless AXIS bombers restricted to 20K or lower - yeaaaa fun for you).  The AXIS side has no such advantages - The Frame 01 disaster proved that.  I'll bet the points will show that the AXIS side lost Frame 01 by as much as 750 points or more.  A complete disaster by any measure with most action over by H+60 (16 AXIS pilots left flying against 50 or 60 as I remember).  Wheres the ALLIED outrage with Frame 01?? (crickets, crickets)  So Frame 02 was planned differently.  I protected my high point value AC and committed low point AC against high target point value targets.  That's called risk to reward planning.  What I had to do to win was to split the ALLIED forces and maximize AXIS combat power against ALLIED weakness at a location and time of my choosing, hard to pull off.  Lastly I employed deception to win.  I factored that the ALLIED defenders would sit defending waiting for bombers that would never appear until H+60 - 70.  The fact that the ALLIED defenders sat at bases after H+70 was a great tactical error on the ALLIED side which i was very happy to exploit.  Maybe instead of complaining about the AXIS plan, maybe you should be complaining to the ALLIED side that issued your orders which you followed and now you don't like.  Or perhaps an internal squad review on your defensive strategy?
       
         I don't know if the AXIS won Frame 02 or not, I know it was close by my count and 100% better than Frame 01. The sides had about the same amount of pilots flying at any given moment right up to the end.  This implies that there was balanced action overall.

         To the ALLEID CIC 68Wooly - <S> good plan on your part.  With a great ALLIED victory in Frame 01 all he had to do was make sure that he didn't give the AXIS a great victory in Frame 02.  He didn't and he played it very well.  In fact the same thing I would have done if I had been on the ALLIED side planning.  So now the ALLIED side goes into Frame 03 ahead of the AXIS side by a good measure.  So all the ALLIED CIC has to do in Frame 03 is again plan to just hold ground and the ALLIED side will win the scenario.

                 NOTE - A great CM Setup team would now change the setup for Frame 03 and give the AXIS side a real chance at a lopsided victory to even out Frame 01 results - This would force some really good game play from the ALLIES - We'll see wont we, any beats??

  For those of you that posted above complaining you didn't see enough action or that the AXIS didn't offer easy kills in a set piece battle as you thought it should have played out.  Keep complaining and the CM's will place even more restrictive play for even greater canned events.  Which will likely decrease the FSO turnout even further until only you are only ones left attending......

  Its long over due to deregulate the FSO and open up the game play.  The MA is very unrestricted and it seems to do very well.  With some squads like the 49th posting MEGA Missions and getting more involvement than FSO operations.  Most of us have been involved in base rolling with 60 plus guys.  Were greatly restricted and you see what we have here.  Putting my money where my mouth is: Id be glad to offer my imputes to the CM team off line in the hopes of creating better game play.  But this means everything needs to be open for review, everything.  Id even offer my time for BETA planning and testing if needed.  Additionally - Id recommend the CM Team starting a separate thread site and open up the comments to everyone on how to overhaul the FSO.  Theres lots of great guys in here and all with good opinions and ideas and the energy to help the community.

Viper61
CO 325th VFG
AXIS CIC Frame 02

   

[Spikes]

So why did your entire squad land at T+30?

[swareiam]

 
        I was the AXIS CIC - My job is to make a plan with the greatest chance of victory.  Victory is scored by "points".  My job is not to ensure everyone has fun or sees endless action.  My job is to win for my side.     
 

Viper,

This is where you are wrong. Unless we all hop into a time machine and go back to the forties, this is not real. All of us are hear to have fun and enjoy some comradery with squaddies and friends.

Your job as the CIC is to give each player on your side the opportunity to engage in battle. That is what they show up for. Not too many people really even care about the victory. We are not taking it that serious, so why are you?

If you want to step down from the CIC position because you believe that neglecting this duty and not respecting your fellow players time and fun is important, than that is your choice.

Every player comes to this arena on Friday nights to see action. The CICs job is to get them into the thick of it. Your protest and ideology should only be points of conversation and expression in this forum and they should never come at the expense of any players time and fun.

[Nefarious]

I just have to know one thing.  If your plan all along was to take off, land, and tower out. Why not just spawn and tower out?

Why even waste the 30 or so minutes you took to fly in the opposite direction of the enemy?

[Nefarious]