1-There should be an attack requirement for both sides.
2-If there is an altitude limit, it should be imposed an all aircraft or not at all.
3-The action was spread too far apart on the map for follow on attack and fighting.
4-There were too many bombers required for the amount of targets available.
If we start imposing too many limitations on what can/cannot be done, then I think FSO loses its uniqueness in recreating events. I'm not saying that we need to duplicate events exactly, but it should maintain the spirit.
Given that, I'm not in favor of #1 (forcing both sides to have an attack requirement). The rest of this has bearing to the above, but is more of a comment on FSO in general.
I don't like the idea of forcing an alt cap either. There were reasons that bombers flew at the altitude they did and those reasons should be valid in the scenarios we run. Bombers in the MA like to fly at high altitude because it's easy to hit your target and chances for survival are greater up high. However, it's WAY too easy to hit your target in the MA with no wind (not totally true these days), auto calibration and little chance of clouds to obscure your view. FSO doesn't need to replicate the MA. It only needs to set the objectives, the environment, and the available resources. Limits to the available resources, environmental conditions, and of course opposition are the challenges that must be overcome.
The problem I see with bombing in FSO is that it is rare to actually return home. It is so rare that if the casualty rates were used in actual war, the war would be over in days. This is usually means that bomber missions are not the mission of choice for most participants. What we need is more freedom for bomber mission crews to decide how they want to conduct their mission so they have a better chance at surviving.
I would suggest removing the time limit for hitting the target. Predicting when attacks will come has been too easy.
I recommend removing the alt constraints for everyone and let the CiCs and mission leaders make decisions how they see fit. Let the defense decide whether to place their CAP high or low. Let the offense decide where to place their buffs to survive and to have an impact. If bomber crews want to climb to 25k+, that's their choice, but they also need to get back down before frame end. Also, contrails should be a part of that in both decision and effect (please, pretty please).
Make it a challenge to hit targets. Europe was notorious for having cloud cover and using smoke pots to obscure target areas was a common practice. Second attack missions had to deal with smoke from previous damage (forcing commanders to think about wind and where to attack first / next). Cloud layers can be a hindrance and a help. They can obscure target areas, forcing lower altitudes to see the target, and they can hide ingress into target areas and egress out of target areas. You might get a better chance at hitting targets by flying lower, but you are at greater risk (sometimes) if you do. Wind settings seem reasonable at the moment (except alt cap).
For target objectives, have a primary and secondary target (maybe within a sector of the primary) with more points going to hitting the primary. Make bomber group missions single sortie. Whatever they are going to hit, they have one chance to do it. No more bomber hotpad and second attempts as that was not how the war was fought. Usually, distance and time forces this, but it should be clarified. This way, if clouds obscure the primary or its too hot with defense, a secondary target has a chance to be hit.
Use manual bomb sight calibration exclusively. We don't need the MA in FSO. FSO is supposed to offer a realistic challenge. I would gladly provide manual calibration practice sessions before every FSO for anyone that wanted to improve their skills in that regard. Using auto calibration feels like the old AW days of the half time arena where people were more interested in playing a video game than in realistic simulation.
However, with an increase in the challenge, we also need to provide support for those that don't step up to the challenge. Not every bombardier was trained in using the precision bomb sight, so the lead bombardier of a group was often the most capable and everyone else took their queue to drop from him. Given that, mix up target types with some being precision targets (perhaps the primary ones) and some being area (perhaps the secondary ones). Let the crews decide on whether to use precision bombing or area bombing styles on their particular choice of targets (i.e. an area bombing style used on precision airfield hangar targets is still a valid and useful bombing style). This way, a squadron only needs one decent bomber pilot in order to make a difference.
Allow buffs to auto gun when the pilot is in the bombardier or pilot position. Yes, this is wish list, but it's a common AH problem. Fighters know that buffs can easily be killed as they are lining up to drop. In actual war, it was because they couldn't evade flak and fighters at all (though they could fire back). In AH, it's because there are is no defensive fire at all.
Resource limits should have more meaning. The way FSO is fought now is we know pretty much what's going to attack where and when and everyone plays MA style until all the targets are gone. There's hardly any incentive to stay alive. It's not a mission, it's a scripted brawl. I would rather see an inventory mix of aircraft types and numbers be available and used as CiCs see fit. However, there's also a resupply issue to consider as well. Aircraft lost in a frame should have replacement limits on successive frames. Some types will be more easily replaced than others. This means attacks will be more varied and defense will not always know what they will be up against (or vice versa). Too many fighters and not enough bombers used in frame 1 may mean bombers flying with too few escorts in frame 2 or vice versa.
As for attack targets being too spread out, again I say this is simulation of combat in a theater. It should not be a scripted MA brawl that everyone can join in. Dresden and Berlin weren't chosen because they were close to each other so everyone could get in on the fight.
As to too many bombers and not enough targets, I think freedom to use a proper mix of aircraft types and numbers from an available inventory solves this. Commanders will plan whatever is appropriate for their objectives.
As to bomber survivability, I think the above helps solve it. With unlimited choice of proper high, medium, and low attacks and the associated difficulties that come with those choices, bombers will be able to get through and be happy about their achievement.
As to fun quotient, that remains to be seen, but humans get bored with repetitiveness and I can't see FSO being boring after adding in more choices and variability. I can forsee lopsided victories and defeats and stunning close calls based on CiC and mission lead decisions (good or bad) leading to a long list of memorable moments though.
Regarding waystin's comment about FSO being changed after joining, I'd prefer not to see that happen, but also acknowledge that the CMs need their own choices to deal with variability in the number of participants and other factors.
In closing, I want to quote the AH Events web page regarding FSO: "Friday Squad Operations (FSO) and Snapshots are all like Scenarios but run more frequently. They appeal to the same group of players: those who like more realism. These events have realistic aircraft matchups, mission objectives, and command structures." The Scenario description says: "A scenario typically involves two sides. Each side has particular aircraft, mission objectives, squadron assignments, bases, and resources." The goal of FSO is weekly simulation of historic or near realistic battles. We should be given the full rights and responsibilities of that and should CMs should recreate the original conditions (environmental, resources) as best as possible. CiCs should be allowed full use of those resources, but also be responsible for the results. Perhaps CiCs should serve for all three frames, but I'll leave this for now.
