Aces High Bulletin Board
Special Events Forums => Friday Squad Operations => Topic started by: Sled on November 17, 2007, 09:26:07 PM
-
Have made adjustments to the squad spliting, and T+60 rules.
Here (http://ahevents.org/fso-related/fso-rules.html)
-
Noticed that some other items from the last changes(I think) are still high lighted yellow and the latest are not. Changes are not hard to find, just takes more than a quick glance.
I see no mention of 50/50 squad split. Is that as intended?
If so, the CiCs still need to be carefull when Max/Min rules apply to dictate rather than suggest what squads fly.
Like the Ord mandate- glad to see it.
-
Originally posted by RSLQK186
I see no mention of 50/50 squad split. Is that as intended?
Yes, We did this so squads can up 2 x ME-262's for scouting, and the rest of the squad could be in G-6's, or whatever.
The most important thing, we want squads to fly together in the same objective. NO splitting squads into 2 different objectives.
-
I think the meat of the change was the T+60 rules...
I want to thank the Cm team for the work on that. I think the new rules will avoid a lot of stupid crud in the future.
Good work.
-
- All targets must be attacked within 60 minutes of the start of the frame. They must be attacked with explosive ordinance, (rockets and bombs) by a full squadron.
My understanding of a "full squadron" is 12 planes. Is that correct?
TKs
-
Agree, no more "CAPing" an objective with 4 planes, or "attacking" same with 4 planes.
A "squadron" imho should be defined as 12 a/c bare minimum commitment.
-
Why the change in the T+60 rule, especially in regard to ordnance?
-
The rule seems sound, however there will need to be some leeway in how it's enforced. If a stirke of 15 planes goes after a target and effective screens take out all but 3 aircraft they are going to have to press their attack shorthanded, and IMHO they will have satisfied the "spirit" of the rule. A CiC can't be expected to divert planes from other objectives/CAP stations to fulfill this "squadron sized" rule.
-
I agree, the wording should be changed to "attempt to attack target"
-
There are several things to respond to, I am going to try to be as brief as I can in my answers.
Originally posted by FTJR
My understanding of a "full squadron" is 12 planes. Is that correct?
TKs
No, We started with the number "12" but deleted that because we wanted to give leeway for attacks on trains and convoys. These do not necessarily require a squadron of 12 to attack them. Yes it is possible that a CiC may only send a small group (6 or less) to attack a larger target, but that would not be wise if they want to have a decent chance of destroying that target. Plus the rule is clear that the MAIN attack force is to attack before T+60. Also a early "weak / fake" attack does not meet the requirement.
Why the change in the T+60 rule, especially in regard to ordnance?
A bunch of P51's coming in at 500mph and taking a strafing pass, is not a legitimate attack for a FSO target. We want targets to be attacked, and in almost all cases the use of rockets or bombs is appropriate.
The rule seems sound, however there will need to be some leeway in how it's enforced. If a strike of 15 planes goes after a target and effective screens take out all but 3 aircraft they are going to have to press their attack shorthanded, and IMHO they will have satisfied the "spirit" of the rule. A CiC can't be expected to divert planes from other objectives/CAP stations to fulfill this "squadron sized" rule.
This has always been the case in FSO. Even recently this has been put to the test. If a legitimate attack group is intercepted before arriving to target and destroyed, then a penalty is not going to happen.
-------------------------
We are not going to try and put into words every possible circumstance that may arise during an FSO, and what the "rule" is for it. This is why the phrase "Don't chase your tail" was created.
:)
-
Originally posted by SLED
A bunch of P51's coming in at 500mph and taking a strafing pass, is not a legitimate attack for a FSO target. We want targets to be attacked, and in almost all cases the use of rockets or bombs is appropriate.
I disagree. The original intent of the T+60 rule as well as the rule that all targets are to be attacked, were for game play considerations. They ensured that (a). All players see action. (b). All players see action in the first half of the frame.
Points awarded to the defenders for protecting a target is in essence a penalty for the attackers for not destroying it. So it should not matter what type of attack is performed, just as long as one occurs.
The new rule mandates the use of ordnance before T+60. This all but eliminates a fighter sweep or suppression before ordnance arrives on distant targets. The rule as it currently stands severly handicaps any tactical considerations for the CiC and/or strike leader.
In addition, the new rules of specific numbers for all aircraft used is a departure from just limiting uber rides in the past.
IMHO but with all due respect, it appears that the CM's are trying to micromanage the event.
-
WXMan--The original intent of the T+60 rule as well as the rule that all targets are to be attacked, were for game play considerations. They ensured that (a). All players see action. (b). All players see action in the first half of the frame.
Points awarded to the defenders for protecting a target is in essence a penalty for the attackers for not destroying it. So it should not matter what type of attack is performed, just as long as one occurs.
You have made our point for us. Many times, an attack was 2-3 p51s screaming in from 30k firing on the field and running away for something else. There was no action for defenders. Many CiC's would use this tactic to satisfy the attack by t+60 rule.
The new rules do not eliminate fighter sweeps, they make them what they are supposed to be. The force the fighter sweeps to go in knowing the attacking force is coming in behind them. If they fail, well the attack force is hit, if they are successful then the attack force can do its job.
I believe these changes will make for better game play, and ensure that all involved see action. This will also make for some interesting plans and stratagies.(sp?)
Before you start yelling foul and talking about micromanagement, give the new rules a chance.
Gaidin
-
Originally posted by Gaidin
You have made our point for us. Many times, an attack was 2-3 p51s screaming in from 30k firing on the field and running away for something else. There was no action for defenders. Many CiC's would use this tactic to satisfy the attack by t+60 rule.
Gaidin
No action? The defenders did not give chase? Or perhaps the Squadron CO did not take this possibility into consideration and was out of position. A tactical error?
What difference would it make if those same 2-3 P51's came screaming in from 30K with 100lb bombs. Legislate the type of ordnance required?
Originally posted by Gaidin
The new rules do not eliminate fighter sweeps, they make them what they are supposed to be. The force the fighter sweeps to go in knowing the attacking force is coming in behind them. If they fail, well the attack force is hit, if they are successful then the attack force can do its job.
Gaidin
I did not say that it would eliminate fighters sweeps. My precise concern was for distant targets. The travel time to target would not allow an effective sweep to occur because of the deadline, the attack force would have to hit almost immediately upon arriving with sweep. They would not have the option of waiting for the fighter sweep to become effective. In addition the advantage switches to defenders on a distant target because the attack window will narrow significantly with a ordnance deadline.
Originally posted by Gaidin
I believe these changes will make for better game play, and ensure that all involved see action. This will also make for some interesting plans and stratagies.(sp?)
Before you start yelling foul and talking about micromanagement, give the new rules a chance.
Gaidin
I disagree. The more rules and restrictions there are, the less room there is for strategic thinking. Each event will end up mirroring the previous one and I'm afraid that FSO will wind up a shell of what it used to be.
While I'm not yelling foul, I'm voicing my strong disagreement now because I didn't before on rules changes I thought were unecessary. Once a rule or law is implented, it becomes entrenched and rarely is revoked but is frequently added to.
-
Originally posted by WxMan
While I'm not yelling foul, I'm voicing my strong disagreement now because I didn't before on rules changes I thought were unecessary. Once a rule or law is implented, it becomes entrenched and rarely is revoked.
WxMan, I think these two changes will actually be transparent to everyone. Understand the intent of the T+60 rule, because that's how it will be used by the Admins.
Just trying to get rid of some of the smoke and mirrors/lawyering that goes into some plans. You roll a detached escort over a target at T+50 with the strikers 15 mins behind them--that doesn't violate the rule. Send a single aircraft to flash a field at T+50 with the strikers 15 mins behind it--that does. Just one example of what we're trying to avoid.
-
The rule states .. All targets must be attacked within 60 minutes of the start of the frame. They must be attacked with explosive ordinance, (rockets and bombs) by a full squadron.
Now the letter of the law says that ordnance has to be dropped on target by T+60. Stoney your example above would be in violation.
In the past the T+60 rule was considered met when a squadron sized force engaged the enemy. Engagement was defined as anytime ordnance was expended or fire was exchanged. Included was not only JABO and or bomber raids, but a fighter sweep.
Clearly I don't anybody would seriously think a lone fighter flashing a base would fullfill the requirement.
-
A couple of things to understand.
I didn't come up with these rules, by myself, Friday night after a six-pack.
These rules were written with the involvement of many members of the CM Team, most of these people have extensive FSO experience (4 years + each). They was discussed in length for several months. Drafts were started and re-written several times. A lot of time and thought was given to these rule revisions. These were not "knee jerk" reactions.
------------------------
Here are some things we want to avoid.
example: 2 fighters come in and drop a couple of bombs before T+60, then at T+90 a large formation of bombers arrives at the same target and destroys it. After the defending fighter cover has scattered looking for some action, thinking the first 2 heavy fighters is it.
That is why it says: "CIC's are expected to construct their orders in such a way that the main attacks reach their targets by T+60."
This rule in NO WAY prevents an early fighter sweep of a target. It just says that the bomber force has to arrive before T+60. The fighters can go in at any time before or after. If fighters can't get to a target and sweep it before the bombers arrive, there is a problem.
Admin CM's and CiC's have a responsibility to keep these rules in mind and adjust there orders so squads are able to complete their task without breaking the rules.
Example: telling a squad they have to fly 300 miles in bombers to attack a target is not going to work. The orders have to allow for travel time and the T+60 rule.
Something to consider. the T+60 rule has another desired effect, It acts as an altitude cap for Bombers in most cases (except for air starts). Bombers can't get to much more than about 25-28 K before they have to get set for their bomb run. If you dislike fighting bombers at 35K with your 109, this rules helps to reduce that chance.
Clearly I don't (think) anybody would seriously think a lone fighter flashing a base would fullfill the requirement.
Unfortunately in the past they have.
BTW, the rules will stay as written for a while. We will give it a chance.
-
Originally posted by WxMan
In addition, the new rules of specific numbers for all aircraft used is a departure from just limiting uber rides in the past.
Could you elaborate here?
I try to set minimums and maximums depending on the situation. In the upcoming FSO, I decided all aircraft would have a minimum. This aspect of FSO is usually Admin Preference and varies FSO to FSO for playability.
Nef :)
-
Originally posted by WxMan
No I disagree. The more rules and restrictions there are, the less room there is for strategic thinking. Each event will end up mirroring the previous one and I'm afraid that FSO will wind up a shell of what it used to be.
While I'm not yelling foul, I'm voicing my strong disagreement now because I didn't before on rules changes I thought were unecessary. Once a rule or law is implented, it becomes entrenched and rarely is revoked but is frequently added to.
As Sled mentioned, there was considerable discussion on this rule to avoid excessive restrictions, and I think the wording is a little less restrictive than you think. We did not want to say, at least X number of planes, or try to describe what a main attack would include, except that it should probably be more than a straffing run. Here is the wording on T+60 rule.
- All targets must be attacked within 60 minutes of the start of the frame. They must be attacked with explosive ordinance, (rockets and bombs) by a full squadron. Feints and diversions prior to a larger strike force do not satisfy the requirements of this rule. Simply strafing a target with fighters does not satisfy the requirements of this rule. CIC's are expected to construct their orders in such a way that the main attacks reach their targets by T+60. Administrator CM's may request copies of orders to evaluate the observance of this rule.
I think the wording is fairly accurate, without being too specific. The most significant part of the wording is that the CIC plans for a Main Attack by T+60. I think most of us understand what a main attack is, if explosive ordinance and Squadron strength are not good descriptors, what would be better? Maybe we have a misunderstanding on what constitutes a main attack? I don't think there was any discussion that a main attack does not have to include bombs or rockets at a minimum.
-
My concern is getting bombers into the air at alt and formed up. During and event several months ago I really had a very difficult time getting bombers to 24k formed and over target in the T+60.
Without air starts it was impossible. The first target was attacked at T+55 but the second one was nearly 10 min late. Its the defenders job to remain on station until told to move on.
Wxmans right this will limit strategic thinking. This will be my only post as the horse is dead, but I want my objection noted.
Vlkyrie1
-
Originally posted by Valkyrie
My concern is getting bombers into the air at alt and formed up. During and event several months ago I really had a very difficult time getting bombers to 24k formed and over target in the T+60.
Without air starts it was impossible. The first target was attacked at T+55 but the second one was nearly 10 min late. Its the defenders job to remain on station until told to move on.
Wxmans right this will limit strategic thinking. This will be my only post as the horse is dead.......
You make a good point Valkyrie. that is why earlier in this thread I stated.
Admin CM's and CiC's have a responsibility to keep these rules in mind and adjust there orders so squads are able to complete their task without breaking the rules.
If sometime in the future this is not able to be accomplished, for some reason. Then I could see exceptions being made. But I think this will be a rare situation.
........but I want my objection noted.
Noted.
BTW when one of you guys figures out how the CM team can do things without receiving objections............ We would really like to know.
;)
-
Originally posted by Valkyrie
My concern is getting bombers into the air at alt and formed up. During and event several months ago I really had a very difficult time getting bombers to 24k formed and over target in the T+60.
Without air starts it was impossible. The first target was attacked at T+55 but the second one was nearly 10 min late. Its the defenders job to remain on station until told to move on.
Wxmans right this will limit strategic thinking. This will be my only post as the horse is dead, but I want my objection noted.
Vlkyrie1
Another thing to remember is that the ETO U.S. bombers were the only ones dropping from these types of operational altitudes. German, Japanese, and British bombers (Lanc night time alts were below 20K) typically dropped from less than 20K. There wasn't a lot of oxygen, relatively speaking, used in PTO until the B-29's showed up, for example. If Ju-88's are dropping from 24,000 feet, they're way above their historical operational bombing altitudes.
Sorry for the confusing example WxMan. I should have said "a fighter sweep at T+50 with the bombers 10 minutes behind them."
-
The rule: All targets must be attacked within 60 minutes of the start of the frame. They must be attacked with explosive ordinance, (rockets and bombs) by a full squadron. Feints and diversions prior to a larger strike force do not satisfy the requirements of this rule. Simply strafing a target with fighters does not satisfy the requirements of this rule. CIC's are expected to construct their orders in such a way that the main attacks reach their targets by T+60. Administrator CM's may request copies of orders to evaluate the observance of this rule.
Originally posted by SLED
That is why it says: "CIC's are expected to construct their orders in such a way that the main attacks reach their targets by T+60." ............ The fighters can go in at any time before or after. If fighters can't get to a target and sweep it before the bombers arrive, there is a problem.
Originally posted by TracerX
I think the wording is fairly accurate, without being too specific. The most significant part of the wording is that the CIC plans for a Main Attack by T+60. I think most of us understand what a main attack is, if explosive ordinance and Squadron strength are not good descriptors, what would be better? Maybe we have a misunderstanding on what constitutes a main attack? I don't think there was any discussion that a main attack does not have to include bombs or rockets at a minimum.
Actually I want the rules to be specific. I don't want a judgement to be made on what the rules infered or the intent of the rule.
Without specifity, I think you can make the opposite arguement. Since the ordnance time restriction and term main attack are in the same paragraph and due to how it's worded you can make the inference that the "main attack" has to include mainly ordnance.
I actually have no problem with requiring that ordnance be used on a target. My main complaint is the time restriction. It limits what I CiC can plan for.
And while we are at it....what constitutes Squadron strength? A small Squad of 4 to 6, that can legally consist of only 2, or something larger.
Again I would like more specifity.
-
In my business, we have a contract with our employer. That contract is about 50-60 pages long and grows a little every time it is rewritten.
10-15 lawyers, plus another 10-15 negotiators are used to write this contract, every 4 years or so. And still almost weekly there are things that happen in our work place that require several people to "interpret" that contract, and determine exactly what it says about the subject being discussed.
It has always been this way, and will always be. We will NEVER have a contract that defines every possible situation that might arise and what the proper response is for that situation. But we still pay dozens of people to try.
Point?
We could spend hundreds of hours trying to write a rule platform that would spell out everything in FSO, and leave nothing to interpretation. But it is not going to happen.
And we are not going to try. The CM team (not just me) will make judgment calls from time to time, and we will have to decide if a rule was broken or not. We will do it as a group (the FSO team) and we will be fair and unbiased.
-------------------------
As for squad strength.
4-6 F4u-1's to attack a medium airbase is not (normally) a reasonable attack.
4-6 F4u-1's to attack a convoy........ Is.
-
Originally posted by WxMan
Without specifity, I think you can make the opposite arguement. Since the ordnance time restriction and term main attack are in the same paragraph and due to how it's worded you can make the inference that the "main attack" has to include mainly ordnance.
That is correct.
I actually have no problem with requiring that ordnance be used on a target. My main complaint is the time restriction. It limits what I CiC can plan for.
The event is only two hours long. So time limitations are one of the obstacles the CiC has to deal with.
-
Air Starts for US bombers and I won't complain.
Vlkyrie1
-
Originally posted by Valkyrie
Air Starts for US bombers and I won't complain.
Vlkyrie1
Vlkyrie1 I believe that air starts for bombers has more or less to do with whether or not it was built into the maps design not so much a CMs decision..
I could be completely wrong on this though as I am not sure about my facts on this one.
-
Originally posted by Valkyrie
Air Starts for US bombers and I won't complain.
Vlkyrie1
Well that was easy. :lol
We have had Air Starts for a long time in FSO. They are not used in every event, and are dependant on if they are available in the map that is being used.
Normally when A/S are used there is an altitude restriction of some kind on the bombers.
So.......... No more complaints from you. ;)
-
As I have posted a few times in the past some concerns for rule areas, I'm not goona go through them again. But I will say by reading this post I get the impression that any questions or other concerns being stated that the responses seemingly a little condesending.
Sled, as you have stated that many of the CM's have been "in the game" for a long period of time, so have all that have voiced their concerns. Many have been front runners in the FSO's and have put great work into CIC duties as well as other areas. I have a great appreciation for the entire CM group and their hard work they put into this, but as you have stated, we also didn't just come up with these concerns from sitting with a 6-pack one night as well.
As I do understand not all areas can be written in stone, that some "gray" areas will exist, as not all contigencies can be or should be covered. But I can say that as some of the rule changes may on the outside look good, from the inside they at times wreak havoc.
Hard clad rules in some areas may seem the way to go, but then to follow up with judgement calls when they aren't met seem to take the extra time and care in mission planning to try and meet the requirements somewhat frustrating.
An example of "what if the strike force gets hit before the target" concern is a double edge sword here. To meet this requirement in the past, have been on mission where we had to take a direct route without getting good alt just to be wiped out be an enemy force aware of that fact. Then to penalized (which happened) by not hitting the targets and also give up defensive bonus points added to the effect. Also consider the fact that no restrictions on defense really exist. Nothing stops them from combining forces by leaving defensive areas to mass together to hit the route of approach knowling due to this restriction. It has happened numerous times, and with your example of a 4 plane strike finally hitting its target of a medium feild as not sufficiant, it will happen again.
Not complaining or trying to put anyone back, just voicing a concern from many past experiences with FSO's. But with stating a mandate, but not stating a minimum requirement to meet that mandate just opens a large judgemental gray area up. How do I even know to split group B heading to another target to help cover the loses I received on group A if I don't even know what a minimum is?
-
No "condescending" tone was intended. AAMOF, I have the utmost respect for what you guys have to say. If I didn't, then I would not have posted replies to your concerns.
-
If you can't get your fleet of 290-mph super-gunned B-24s to 30k and bomb the target inside of 60 minutes, fly at 20k and still outpace most of your enemy, out shoot most of them, drop on target, and STILL have time left over for formation and flight planning.
The higher you want to go the more time it takes, it increases geometrically. While it might only take 5 minutes to climb from 0k to 5k, it could take 8 minutes more to climb from 5k to 10k, and by the time you're climbing from 20k to 25k (or more) you're spending 20 minutes for 5,000 feet.
Dude, you can't have it all. Prioritize. Alt, or target. Pick one. My choice is the target.
-
New to FSO's but not new to organized events (Warbirds S3's). This rule (T+60) seems to me to disallow thought out offensive and defensive stratergies. Historically the Allied force didn't send a telegram statign where they were going and that they would be there in an hour.
Why not prioritize targets. Assign different point values for each and make a simple Two Targets Per Frame Rule. This allows allied CO's to determine what target has the most to gain versus resistance and the axis CO's to try and outsmart the Allies. It sounds to me that it has become a game of axis and allies where you know where the fight is it all depends on the dice rolls.
IMHO If you allowed creative thought in organizing the offensive and defensive fronts the FSO's would be that more interesting. Who cares if you see action in the first 60 minutes. It creates realism. Never knowing when. Allowing plenty of time to get your defensives set against what you think is coming.
And airstarts. I know they were really popular during WWII....c'mon...
It was one attack, one sortie, one mission, several targets.
I left warbirds because they numbers there were struggling and admin did not care to improve upon his product. I am excited to fly the FSO's. Don't ruin it with too many rules.
-
Hey BooBird,
Glad to see you guys come over and try FSO.
I am excited to fly the FSO's. Don't ruin it with too many rules.
I couldn't agree more. Most of what we have for "Rules" (probably better to call them "Guidelines"). Stem from things in FSO's past where CiC's (side commanders), or Squad CO's, took advantage of the lack of rules and "Gamed the event".
Most of what you see in the FSO "rules" is a result of this.
I am curious to hear what kind of "rules" there are in S3. What types of problems did you have in that event (as far as Gaming) and how did the Janitors and side commanders deal with these things after the fact?
How did S3 deal with situations where squads did not see action during an event? Example: The Axis commander only sends 2 AC to attack a base being defended by 20 Allies. Therefore those 20 Allies have a very boring night with little action.
S3 was the same as FSO in respect to: 2 hour event, two sides attacking and defending targets. Correct?
Was it a strictly enforced 2 hours?
I am most eager to hear your fresh perspective. :aok
-
Originally posted by BooBird
I am excited to fly the FSO's. Don't ruin it with too many rules.
Didn't see your squad registered. Which squad are you with?
Originally posted by BooBird
New to FSO's but not new to organized events (Warbirds S3's). This rule (T+60) seems to me to disallow thought out offensive and defensive stratergies. Historically the Allied force didn't send a telegram statign where they were going and that they would be there in an hour.
Why not prioritize targets. Assign different point values for each and make a simple Two Targets Per Frame Rule. This allows allied CO's to determine what target has the most to gain versus resistance and the axis CO's to try and outsmart the Allies. It sounds to me that it has become a game of axis and allies where you know where the fight is it all depends on the dice rolls.
Novel idea of prioritized targets, but that is exactly why we have a time limit. That is to ensure everyone sees action.
If FSO had four targets per side, and only two had to be attacked, Two Defensive groups would not see action, we try to make FSO historical as possible but flying around for two hours and seeing no enemies is not something we're trying to emulate.
-
I believe they are flying as guest this event. I will make sure they have squads to fly with.
I have been in contact with them. They will form a squad when they stabilize in FSO.
-
S3's were actually a 3 hour event. Medium sized maps with mulitple (10-15) possible targets. It created a situation where it wasn't hey squad A guard this base, hey squad B you over there. Both sides were given both offensive and defensive objectives. Defensive was multi layered caps. High cap, mid cap, low cap. Fighters (ex 109s) had resposibility for fighter escort while others (190's) would get buffs. It did stretch you out. It has a 40 mile redar so you see them coming and hope you guessed right. But is it a decoy or the real deal. They was so much to discuss in this forum format. I have e-mailed the guys who have come over to Aces High who have the wisdom and experience from being involved with these for years.
As far as rules were. Depended on frame.
Generally there was no ord drop after T+150 or T+160
You had to RTB before the frame ended.
You had to hit so many targets per frame(and they carried over) If I hit Field 1 in frame 1 it was closed in Frame 2.
You could not manually man ack.
The Janitors just gave the CO's a list of objectives and set the plane set.
Janitors would provide some intelligence both ways so that things funneled towards something. (Reports of heavy radio traffic from allied field 17) (Reports of possible P-47 formations somewhere in the 6.5. grid)
These didn't say what they were there for just intel.
Obviously you only get one life.
I will have some of the others get on here and see if they can clear any of my rambling up as I am not the supreme council on this things.
Please do not take this as an insult or criticism in any way. None was intended.
Like I mentioned before I am very excited about these FSO's.
SLED I replied to your PM.
-
Originally posted by Nefarious
Didn't see your squad registered. Which squad are you with?
Novel idea of prioritized targets, but that is exactly why we have a time limit. That is to ensure everyone sees action.
If FSO had four targets per side, and only two had to be attacked, Two Defensive groups would not see action, we try to make FSO historical as possible but flying around for two hours and seeing no enemies is not something we're trying to emulate.
That is why you layer your cap and assign patrols.
You are set to defend a country not just an airfield. This means a well thought out, orchestrated, concentrated mission into enemy territory. They are gonna come balls to the walls. It is about being in position, with patrols ready to break off and engage. It plays into the fuel situation. It plays into the plane set. I understand the point of no action. Usually this would work into smaller quicker strikes before the big one where all are involved. Each squad in their assigned aircraft given specific responsibilities. You dont wanna attack buffs in a 109. Use them to engage fighter sweep. IMHO if you assigned both sides a offensive and defensive position that would help elimiante some lag. And you rotate these roles.
Again, I dont want to stir the hornests nest but I felt compelled to voice an opinion on the T+60 rule.
You guys obviously do a superb job and I can not wait to get up this Friday night. Great Big .
-
Many years ago I went rounds and rounds about the FSO design with other CM’s. banana was the head CM then. I Adopted many of the successful patterns the S3’s have. Those guys were a huge help. Nothing but respect for the crew that manages the S3’s, but what works for S3’s does not mean it will work for Squad Operations. Two different communities, two different WWII flight sims that have subtle but significant differences when it boils down to event and player management. Hope you come to enjoy FSO BooBird, but try it as it stands for a while. Many have said FSO is the reason they are still in AH. We have watched it grow from under 100 in the first frame of Aug 2001 (called Tour of Duty back then) to over 300 now. If I recall the AK’s were there in the first TOD. :)
The T+60 rule has been in place for many years and has been successful in boosting the enjoyment of most, if not all players in FSO. Sled and Nef have already pointed out no one wants to fly around for an hour or more without action. Yes it can be and is a hindrance to the planning of a CiC at times, but it is worth it. Also let me add that if an Admin CM comes up with a target that is to be attacked and due to its distance requires the CiC to make a straight line low level attack due to time constraints, it is the fault of the Admin CM and adjustments should be made. This is almost always caught in the design phase of the event. We want to give CiC’s options, not take them away, but the options will never be at the cost of player enjoyment. Friday Squad Operations are not Scenarios. FSO’s are designed for players to have action in the first hour and it is a design that has worked out very well.
-
Gentlemen
I'm with The Haze 100th FBG. The Haze goes back over ten years in WB's. The squad started years before I ever owned a computer, let alone played a flight sim. A small group of us, mostly newer players, recently left WB's and are attempting to broaden our scope to include AH. We will be flying with the 347FG this series. We hope to have enough players by the next event to fly as The Haze. I'm not much of a strategic thinker and tend to function better in smaller scale tactical situations. I have flown my share of S3's and while I was aware that "great plans" were always in the works, I focused on the small part I had to play. Here are some of things that come to mind when I think of past S3's:
Sitting for an hour on an airfield in England waiting for the scramble call when the Luftwaffe finally showed their hand.
Flying for almost three hours without ever finding the enemy while being on the edge of my seat with white knuckles because I knew contact with the enemy could occur at any moment.
No GPS, no inflight radar, no icons until D400, getting lost, trianglulating my position using the .vor command. Which side of the channel am I on?
My entire squad landing their 109s on the nearest roads because we ran out of fuel 15 miles short of the field.
Oh yes and the fights.
My hands are starting to shake now.
With that said, myself and the rest of The Haze look forward to flying the FSO. Cya in the unfriendly skies.
-
I could not agree more with Daddog here. He is absolutely right.
Welcome BooBird and your friends, glad to have you here! :)
The only thing that I can add to this discussion aside from my support of the rules as Daddog has stated, is to say that I am thankful for the "Guidelines" or "Rules" of FSO. Without them, I believe the event would not be what it is today. Unfortunately, without some of the rules, FSO would just be another MA with a smaller plane set. That is not something I, the CM Staff nor any of the current loyal FSO player-base wants. Many people, myself included, would not be here if it weren't for FSO and events. The MA is, well, the MA.
The feedback is 100% accepted, wanted and taken into full consideration by the CM Staff. Please don't feel like any of you have no voice. That is just not the case. The rules are carefully scrutinized by the CM's and nothing, I repeat, nothing is done on a whim. These changes had many, many months of discussion and were finally decided on by the FSO CM's collectively.
Thank you for your continued attendance in FSO. I am passionate about FSO and have come to know many of the people I call friends in this event. Please know, my PM box is always open.
-
Originally posted by AKKaz
Not complaining or trying to put anyone back, just voicing a concern from many past experiences with FSO's.
It's appreciated, as are all the constructive comments posted above.
Gents, let's try this on for a few FSO's. We'll shake out the kinks (if any emerge as issues) and we'll go forward.
I'm an admin, responsible for building the setups and scoring the results. Nef, Nomde, and I are always looking for ways to build awesome events for you guys. I had a number of issues to deal with in my first event, both from the setup side and the scoring. Trust us, everyone gets a fair shake--we don't have any personal agendas save one--player enjoyment--period.
The last thing we want is anyone walking away from an FSO with a bad experience during a frame. These rules are attempt to regulate certain behaviors in order to guide the gameplay to maximize fun. We felt they needed tweaking in order to better represent our intent for FSO, so we made some changes to the language. If this current language doesn't work, we'll change it.
Last, if you think you have a good idea on how to set up an FSO or are interested in certain historical scenarios, please let us know. Our PM boxes are open and we are all receptive to new ideas.
Please understand that our only goal is to make things better. As I said previously, if this doesn't work, we'll revisit it and modify the language. And, we're always open to input from you guys.
-
I only have strong feelings about rules that are difficult to fairly enforce (as discussed earlier this week in the discussion about the minimum aircraft)...
And, the rule was adjusted somewhat, so I know someone listened.
Personally I think that the rule should be more to the effect that the ORDERS should be inline with the spirit of the rules, since we can not effectively make the squads show up... But for the moment I'm ok with the result.
You know what I'd like to see... Better policing of the squad minimums... Seems like squads blow their minimums all the time with no ill result. And in light of the fact that the plane minimums serve as something of a 'Double-dip', I think its really important that those squads get taken care of, because now, not only do they hurt the immersion of the event, they can actually cause their team to incur a rather significant penalty.
I know its hard to take an event like FSO and throw someone out for blowing minimums, but if you're not going to do that, then what exactly is the point of the rule existing?
Every squad is going to blow minimums once in a while, but some seem to do it with regularity you could set your calendar by...
-
Kurt,
Several squads have been removed from FSO in the recent weeks for just that.
I try to warn squads, and recommend that they reduce their commitment level. If they have multiple issues I will remove them if necessary.
We try to avoid penalizing a side points because a squad is under numbers. It is an option, but not one I am likely to use. It is better to deal with the specific squad.
-
Originally posted by SLED
We try to avoid penalizing a side points because a squad is under numbers.
Well, thats my point...
No, you don't avoid it... Its a new rule that you infact do penalize the side.
You see, what I'm getting at is that if the ORDERS stick to the intent of the plane minimum rules, and some squad doesn't meet minimums you will penalize the team even though the CiC did is job and planned the minimums in good faith.
So, in effect, yes, you do penalize the team.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
If you can't get your fleet of 290-mph super-gunned B-24s to 30k and bomb the target inside of 60 minutes, fly at 20k and still outpace most of your enemy, out shoot most of them, drop on target, and STILL have time left over for formation and flight planning.
The higher you want to go the more time it takes, it increases geometrically. While it might only take 5 minutes to climb from 0k to 5k, it could take 8 minutes more to climb from 5k to 10k, and by the time you're climbing from 20k to 25k (or more) you're spending 20 minutes for 5,000 feet.
Dude, you can't have it all. Prioritize. Alt, or target. Pick one. My choice is the target.
When your target is deep in enemy territory, and the direct route is the only way to get there with a climb rate no greater than ROC 1, you don't tend to get that high.
Not all FSO's are the same, as not all assigned distances are either.
And just so hopefully you will see that your statement is not always the case......... Ever fly 6 sectors in a B5N diagonally? Fly 24's almost 7 sectors as it being the most direct line? These are pretty hard even in the best of circumstances to meet the time frame of 60 mins and thats with giving up grabbing alt to do it. Also knowing the enemy knows this is your only route to make this time and packs all his defensive efforts at this. 8-9 or 10k is not the best place to be when hit by 30 or so 25k 190's.
I'm not saying your point at times isn't valid, but there are times in which is isn't the case either.
And to clarify.............. the 60 rule isn't my concern, it's leaving all the other aspects that come with it up to sole judgemental descretion as to whether the end result was good enough or not. I couldn't even tell you right now on how many planes and ordanance is good enough to meet the requirement if a medium feild was my target.
Whats the minimum I want to not go below if I get attacked enroute to my target and need to call another group to send some of their force to aid mine to complete this mission. Heck, their hitting a factory, how many do they need to requirement to not get penalized and do they have enough to send to me to accomplish mine in the time allotted.
For that matter, when I plan the day before to take those assigned to me to make a mission, how many can I put in escort duty versus heavy's?
This is but one example of an area of gray. I really don't post that much, and also wouldn't want to spend my time posting at all if I didn't feel it wasn't a valid concern. I don't give carefree examples, any that I have always giving have been real and unavoidable. And yes, target is always the priority....................
My apologies if any of my posts seem to look like throwing punches. I try to take great care to ask the question with getting the point I am trying to make across the table. Nothing more is intended.
-
Originally posted by Kurt
Well, thats my point...
No, you don't avoid it... Its a new rule that you infact do penalize the side.
So, in effect, yes, you do penalize the team.
Oh my, here we go again. Where does it say "we will penalize for under minimums" in FSO?
It does say this.......
- Squads that are under in attendance will be reminded and may have to lower their committed numbers. Any squad that is a no-show will be warned and then removed if it happens twice.
and....
- Squads that are chronically under their limit will be warned twice, then possibly removed from Squad Operations.
I see nothing about penalizing a side in points.
-
Originally posted by SLED
Oh my, here we go again. Where does it say "we will penalize for under minimums" in FSO?
SLED, he may be referencing my penalties enforced in the last two frames of OP Cerberus. Not enough pilots showed for a few squads and the result was that the Allied side was under required numbers for the Spit I.
Kurt, I see that more as a function of the CIC planning and checking prior to takeoff. If I'm CIC with a plane minimum or maximum in play for the frame, I don't hang my hat on assigning a squad with a commitment level of 17-21 on a 20 plane minimum, for example. I'll hedge my numbers and maybe assign another squad the same plane. Finally, they can do a numbers count before fields are open, and make sure they'll have the minimum number before everyone rolls.
-
Originally posted by Stoney74
SLED, he may be referencing my penalties enforced in the last two frames of OP Cerberus. Not enough pilots showed for a few squads and the result was that the Allied side was under required numbers for the Spit I.
Kurt, I see that more as a function of the CIC planning and checking prior to takeoff. If I'm CIC with a plane minimum or maximum in play for the frame, I don't hang my hat on assigning a squad with a commitment level of 17-21 on a 20 plane minimum, for example. I'll hedge my numbers and maybe assign another squad the same plane. Finally, they can do a numbers count before fields are open, and make sure they'll have the minimum number before everyone rolls.
In the first paragraph you are dead on, that is exactly what I was referring too...
Paragraph two... We need to clarify a bit...
I increased numbers for my frame orders, I probably won't go under minimums on any type... However, in effect, I now am not dealing with a minimum of 20 am I? Now I'm planning a minimum of 25ish allowing for failures by some squad that might let me down...
"If you want me to wear 15 pieces of flair, why is the minimum 13 pieces of flair? Why not just tell me 15 pieces of flair?"
So, here are the hard facts for Frame 1 Okinawa Axis... I have (based on Minimums) 139 pilots.... I have 100 manditory aircraft (5 types at 20 each).
I have a varience of 39.... 39 pilots divided by 5 types is 7.8... 7.8 is 5.6% of my total pilots...
So on average if there is a 5.6% variance in attendence, I will recieve some penalty somewhere for a busted minimum...
Thats a pretty tight margin for error.
Of course, you're going to point out that its unlikely that I will be dealing with minimums... But the fact is that this rule forces me to plan for the worst case... And the worst case means that every squad shows up at minimums with some being below minimums... Right? This is fun... Remember? A good time.
Starting to make sense now? You gents talk about fun first, but these rules, they are not fun to work with... They are a serious pain in the ... I can plan and plan and spend hours trying to meet this rule... But if Joe Jockstrap decides to bail on FSO, my team gets a kick in the chops. Good fun!
So now, if you'll excuse my Caps, I'd like to make my final argument...
THE CIC CAN NOT CONTROL THE FINAL ATTENDENCE OF HIS FRAME AND SHOULD NOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FAILURE OF INDEPENDENT SQUADRONS.
The rule should apply to the orders that the CiC sends out... The 'side' should not be punished if they get assigned some irresponsible squadron that fails to attend. As long as the orders meet the intent of the rule, then penalties should be waived.
Thats my whole point... I hope it makes better sense now.
-
Yes it does.
Thank you for clarifying Kurt. I was misunderstanding what you were talking about.
-
Excellent...
Thanks for reading my rant!
See ya friday!
-
I read them all ;)
:aok
-
To all of the CM's:
I understand the intent of the rule change. And I agree in giving it a chance to see how it is handled when "situations" arise. I also trust the CM's to make fair calls as have been made in the past.
I also agree with the ordnance change which would require a squad to drop ordnance of some type to count as an attack. But I will tell you for the record I have watched the AK’s drop on an airfield and using machine guns only wipe out a base in a hurry. That was an attack!!
I don’t understand the rationale for the changes however? I assume there has been a problem or protest? From my prospective it all looked like it was running fine. I hadn't seen any negative comments myself.
I do occasionally see the comment or post in the buffers or in here stating that my squad saw no action. It happens to all squads. Sometimes it is do to poor or inexperienced leadership or just dumb luck. But there is no squad that can say we never see any action. The FSO is great for action. So I hope the new rule change is not related to that issue.
I will tell you that I don’t like the new rule change (H+60 Main Attack) however because it places restrictions into the planning of missions and their execution. I for one use every trick that I can (within the rules) to gain the tactical advantage. I almost always plan for late frame strikes. I do so because I know very few squads or leaders have the will to stay and defend as they would rather go out hunting. Also that extra time (late frame) allows the bombers a chance to approach from off angles (without fighter support) and to get to high altitudes. This rule change will most likely stop missions like this.... most likely.
The FSO is about squad planning and operational control during the battle. Time restrictions take away from that. I "believe" the new rule as written and enforced may or will cause head on clashes verses the out thinking and out flanking of your enemy. I am concerned that this rule would force a more MA style of planning in which “might” overcomes “wit”. In short instead of out flanking my enemy I will probably have to muscle my way through to the target which in most cases will cause excess losses. These loses can tip scores especially when bomber formations (3) have a value of 45 points each. Likewise as a defender knowing that my enemy is restricted, I can concentrate my defending forces in both location and altitude giving me the tactical advantage in most cases.
I know that this rule change is not a knee jerk reaction or anything of the sort. And I am quiet sure that all of the CM's bounced this around before the change. And I also believe in allowing and making the "system" work. So let’s give it try. But please retain the FSO and what it is or should be which is: squad operations where planning, leadership and control mean more that shear might. If I wanted that I would post missions in the MA and get the same effect.
Stoney's comment about real world bombing altitudes used by the AXIS vs. the ALLIES. He is correct of course. However I disagree in having to follow historical methods to the "T" or being forced into following that because of a "time period" being imposed which doesn’t allow bombers to climb as high as they can or take a route that avoids contact. Historical accuracy in the FSO should only be a guide and not the rule. If it becomes the rule then no one will want to fly the AXIS side. We all know that the AXIS side lost and I don’t need a history lesson.
The FSO should be about even sides and even objectives in a historical setting and period of the war. It doesn’t bother me if the AXIS side wins the Battle of Britain or if the ALLIES lose every CV at Midway. So I ask that for the sake of the game and its fun to many that the pursuit of Historical Accuracy doesn’t go to far. And when rules are written that effect how high a bomber can go or the direction it has to take because of a time period the historical accuracy has gone too far in my opinion. Stoney I may have taken your comment above out of context. But it sounds like you support this rule change to impose more historical accuracy in the scenarios?
To all of the CM’s you have a tough job that I don’t want, I salute all of your efforts. Just my 2 cents.
Viper 61
325th VFG
-
First off Viper thanks for your kind words.
:)
Originally posted by Viper61
I will tell you that I don’t like the new rule change (H+60 Main Attack) however because it places restrictions into the planning of missions and their execution. I for one use every trick that I can (within the rules) to gain the tactical advantage. I almost always plan for late frame strikes. I do so because I know very few squads or leaders have the will to stay and defend as they would rather go out hunting. Also that extra time (late frame) allows the bombers a chance to approach from off angles (without fighter support) and to get to high altitudes. This rule change will most likely stop missions like this.... most likely.
Quite honestly Viper, that is what we are trying to prevent. We don't want a large group of 17's coming into a target at T+90, at 35K, flattening the target with no resistance.
And when that does happen in FSO (many times in the past) We hear about it.
Believe it or not, we didn't really change the T+60 rule, we just put into writing what has always been, what we felt made for a good event.
As for time constraints, FSO by it's very nature is time constrained. 2 hours that's it. We want the bulk of action to be under way by 60 min. That gives 1 hour for second strikes and RTB.
Also using your example Viper, a group of 17's (or 24's) can travel about 175mi (7 sectors) in an hour, more if you go in lower. Most of the targets that need to be attacked in an FSO are around 4-5 sectors (100-125mi) away from the base of launch. Most of the time you have time to come in from different directions. and certainly many different Altitudes. But about 28K is as high as you are going to get. That is intentional.
You are correct in that we need to give these new rules some time and try them out. The CM team has never been afraid to make adjustments if necessary.
:aok
-
Hope to explain some of this to you...
-
Hope to explain some of this to you as well...
-
Originally posted by SLED
Believe it or not, we didn't really change the T+60 rule, we just put into writing what has always been, what we felt made for a good event.
It is a significant change. If you do a search on the T+60 rule you will find that the intent of the rule was to insure that all targets saw some type of contact from an opposing squad during the first hour. No more no less.
Your addendum to the rule: (a) requires that ordnance is used before T+60.
(b) specifies the squad size and type of attack on a target.
This is huge, as far as requirements. True, many CiC's in the past including me have planned for and executed co-ordinated attacks that would match the new rules, but it's never what you refer to as "what has always been". Prior to this rule adjustment, there was always options for distant or difficult targets and CiC's had some leeway in stratagey.
In essence because of the new restrictions, you will be dictating the direction, type and timing of an attack on most targets. Effectively eliminating most of the offensive and defensive strategy.
-
The planes minimums rule is intended to be a mission planning rule, however, it is being enforced as an attendence rule.
I feel pretty strongly that as long as the CiC planned in good faith with the rule then he should not be punished if actual attendence works against him.
It should be noted that I actually like the rule of minimums... I just think its getting enforced incorrectly.
And on that topic, I think the T+60 rule has the same flaw... As long as the CiC made a reasonable effort to attack the target with a 'squad sized' force, then you shouldn't penalize the team if attendence (or a really good defense plan by the enemy) prevent that force from attacking in the expected numbers.
-
The FSO penalty of 10 points has been lifted due to the positive arguments we've seen here.
But... Should a problem ever arise by not following the minimum requirements (e.g. 100+ La5 Nightmare) the squad/s involved will be removed from FSO.
-
Now you're cookin'...Punish the guys who abuse the system!
Thanks for reading along, and thanks for considering the positions we have presented.