Aces High Bulletin Board
Special Events Forums => Friday Squad Operations => Topic started by: TheBug on July 24, 2009, 01:30:40 PM
-
Well I finished my table on squadron missions over the last 6 frames and definitely feel there needs to be a greater effort for CiCs to spread around the mission assignment types. You can take a look at the table on AHwiki here:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/wiki/index.php/FSO_Squadron_missions (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/wiki/index.php/FSO_Squadron_missions)
I will try and keep it updated as best as I can. If anybody notices a discrepancy please feel free to correct it.
Over the last 6 frames there has been 7 Squads that have not flown one bomber mission.
325th Checkertails, 412th Braunco Mustangs, JG-2, 357th Death Dragons, 327th Steel Talons, Mighty 316th, VMF-251.
And an additional 15 that have only flown one bomber mission.
353rd FG, The Damned, USMC/71 Sqn, VF-6, 13 MPG, 367th Dynamite Gang, 5th Airforce, 9GIAP, Army of Muppets, Claim Jumpers, Hellcat Fighter Group, JV44 Butcher Birds, Nightmares VMF-101, Rolling Thunder, The Unforgiven.
That is out of a total of 40 squads that at least flew last frame. It's over half!
My squad has flown 3 bomber mission out of the last 6 and would have been 4( two in a row) if I didn't complain 3 frames ago. Would really like to see that get spread around a lot more than it currently is. <S>
-
You chart doesn't show the two frames of GV that RT did... (or is that what the (v) means?) One being the Great LVT Shoot... We were the LVTs... ;) And last weeks Frame, RT flew B5Ns... The suckiest of the sucky assignments. You show us as fighter in frame 6... I don't think you should count it that way if we were given a second life due to the less then the most desireable primary assignment. RT has had second lives in 3 of the last 6 frames, that tells me that our primary assignments have been less then ideal 50% of the time. The ONLY fighters RT has been tasked to fly in the 6 frames you list have ALL been as second lives after the T+60 mark. Your chart doesn't show this. In fact, it would at first glance, show something quite different. Upping a fighter at T+60 isn't very ideal. Most the time the action has already passed, and you spend the second half of the Frame just trying to catch tail end charlies. It doesn't even remotely compare to flying a fighter sweep from the start of the frame, or even being primary fighter cover for a target. Second life fighters shouldn't be equated to a primary fighter assignment.
Also it would be much better if your chart listed the frames by name, so it would be easier to know if it is up to date or a few frames behind. I applaud your effort. This is clearly a job that is taking some time and effort. :salute
-
Yeah I put a (v) next to the fighter missions when a squad did GVs first, wasn't sure how to figure that. Hopefully there won't be many frames with GVs, I have no interest in them.
I show you guys as bombers in the last frame. You will be able to tell it is up to date by the header/description above the table. It states what frame 1 is ( Frame 2 of the Marianas) and then counts backward from there. Was trying to keep it as easy as possible to update.
I'm open to any suggestions though. It's just meant as a tool to help the CiCs and I only pointed out the squads to illustrate a point. I know they are only flying what was assigned by the CiC.
-
2 frames ago everyone on the Allied were fighters and shouldn't count.
other than that, all I can say is Thank You to the CiC's that tried to fit us as a fighter squad, which is what we are primarilly, and also responding to our direct e-mails and saying
Please when requesting Fighers. :salute
-
Yeah I put a (v) next to the fighter missions when a squad did GVs first, wasn't sure how to figure that. Hopefully there won't be many frames with GVs, I have no interest in them.
I show you guys as bombers in the last frame. You will be able to tell it is up to date by the header/description above the table. It states what frame 1 is ( Frame 2 of the Marianas) and then counts backward from there. Was trying to keep it as easy as possible to update.
CC, I misread the chart as being Frame 6 is most recent.
I still think that the Primary mission should be the determining factor. Second lives shouldn't be shown on the chart like you are showing them. The Primary mission is the one where the CM has designed things so that you should see some combat. The second life is simply a crap shoot.
-
Very excellent idea! :salute No intentions to be picky. Thinking that the top of the table should be set up to accommodate the space necessary to put the names of the FSO's for the individual frames. This would require more tables being implemented down the road.
-
I think you should break fighter assignments down even further to mission profile (escort, sweep, defense).
Also keep in mind that sometimes the assignment you get in fighters isn't so fun, either. Quite a few times over the last three FSOs (especially the one preceeding Husky) my squad has been holding the stinky end of the stick. And the last frame of Husky we were ordered to fly an attack mission, BTW.
-
I think you should break fighter assignments down even further to mission profile (escort, sweep, defense).
That might be tough to do. It might be next to impossible to determine that level of detail from the logs.
-
I think if you break it down you will find that the groups planning these things are more often than not getting better rides. Personally I dont care to much what I fly,but if I did.I would offer to plan one of these.Keep in mind that while no FSO is bad,this one sure aint been the best and if you plan badly,your likely to hear about it :aok
-
My squad enjoys flying fighters, That is why we request fighters every frame. The 412th appreciates the accommodations as well. Check our stats below in my Sig. We hardly fly bombers or attack, but when we do we participate like we do every Friday.
<S>
-
Wow the last time I broke down who had been flying what, I got tore a new ahole.
If you feel like you are getting too much bomber time, make sure your CO is requesting fighters. If he is, keep tabs on it, and call people on it when you see something wrong. If a couple squads are always in fighters, and another squad who would like to fly fighters always seems to be pulling bombers, ask questions.
-
Not all CiC's favor their own squads. My one and only CiC I gave my squad at the time bombers. I spent close to 6 hours making my set of orders. I relied heavily on squad size as to mission type. It's kinda pointless to give a squad with less than 5 members a high priority assignment if it will take 10-15 planes to accomplish it. In that case you might have to allocate 2 squads to one role, which will stretch you quite thin. If I have a single bomber group and I need them to get to target to have any chance of winning the frame then I feel the need to put a top fighter squad as cover or sweep over a squad that might have 5 FSO kills between 15 members. Yes favoritism may occur but I doubt that it's as rampant as you think.
:salute
-
The table is so I and any other CO, CiC or FSO player can keep tabs. I am the squadron CO for FSO, I have never requested anything other than fighters and have gone so far to contact CiCs especially when our historical ride is present. I wish it worked that easily.
I will add Vehicle to the mission type to be fair. And I will also list the specific frame names at the top of the columns.
Again this is a tool to be used by CiCs if they like. It won't reflect that some people may actually request bombers, but it will give a general idea on a squadrons last few assignments.
-
This is just me thinking in print here and nothing more. But it makes sense to me that small squads would not tend to get bomber duty. Why? Well usually you need some numbers to take a target down, putting 2 or 3 small squads together to accomplish this, would tend to lead to the job maybe not getting done IMO. Not saying they would not try, but a larger squad knows itself, their CO knows everyones abilities.
There is one target and one mission commander, they will work better as one. Several smaller squads together could lead to the proverbial "Too many chiefs, not enough indians"
My squad, we take what were are given, we do our share of bombing, some attack ( though I'd like to do more, but thats just me) and we get fighters, usually as CAP.
Anyways thats just my take, not saying its right or wrong. Just seems to be the common approach to me.
<S>
Looks like Becinhu beat me to this one, sorry
-
Did you request "Bomber" for any of those FSO's? Has your squad CO been slow requesting ride type? A quick review of your table shows you are the only one on there with 3 Bomber missions. I can remember many USMC/71Sqdn Bomber missions and I can't say I regret any of them. Some of our most memorable missions have been in Bombers. How many FSO's has your squad been a participant in? Is this a recent issue or an ongoing problem? It does seem to even out over the years. Sometimes you are lucky and then BOOM(as John Madden says)...reverse luck.
-
My squad enjoys flying fighters, That is why we request fighters every frame. The 412th appreciates the accommodations as well. Check our stats below in my Sig. We hardly fly bombers or attack, but when we do we participate like we do every Friday.
<S>
As do we. Do you know of anybody that doesn't?
-
My personal opinion on this:
I don't really think it should matter what other squads have done in previous frames. What matters is the needs of the frame you're CURRENTLY planning. I've only CiC'ed twice, but just juggling mission needs, min/max requirements and ride requests by THEMSELVES was a chore. I don't want to have to think about or accommodate who flew fighters how many times in a row and if the squad I'm assigning to a bombing objective already flew bombers four weeks ago when another squad hasn't flown them in the last two FSOs.
When I've been a CiC I didn't mind and actually welcomed input from my squad C/Os both before and after the orders were out. If I'm CiC and you've flown bombers or haven't gotten your requested ride in four out of the last six frames just tell me and I'd do what I can to accommodate you. IMO, that's where the responsibility SHOULD fall: Squad C/Os should take care of their guys by advising the CiC of such an issue before the orders are cut. It's a LOT to start piling on the shoulders of the CiC for him to take it into consideration on his own.
-
As do we. Do you know of anybody that doesn't?
Nope. I'm not trying to argue. Since we were going to be called out specifically by name I commented to let everyone know that the 412th appreciates the generous accommodations in FSO.
-
To look at a freaking table. Saxman tell me you're just trying to be a richard?
-
Nope. I'm not trying to argue. Since we were going to be called out specifically by name I commented to let everyone know that the 412th appreciates the generous accommodations in FSO.
I guess I personally don't appreciate the generous accommodations you've been given, I'm sorry.
-
Over the last 6 frames there has been 7 Squads that have not flown one bomber mission.
325th Checkertails, 412th Braunco Mustangs, JG-2, 357th Death Dragons, 327th Steel Talons, Mighty 316th, VMF-251.
Since my squad is listed here, what would you like me to do? :huh
-
Couple things to keep in mind as you view this information.
Most CiC’s (including myself) will give a squad the bomber duty or less desirable one if they don’t update their preferences. How many of you have seen us flying in Europe and some squads still list F4U’s, NiK2’s, Ki-84’s etc. You get the idea. So those squads will most often get the undesirable ride.
Most CiC’s (including myself) will give a squad the bomber duty if they list ‘Any’ ride in their preference. There are a few squads that don’t really care that much what they get.
In just considering those two examples you can see why some squads might get more bomber duty than others.
Lastly Bug the 332nd was assigned SBD’s in both frames 2 and 3 (tonight’s). Some flew F6F’s others SBD’s. Not sure how you would list that in your chart, but I would not put us down just as Fighters. Maybe Attack for frames 2 and 3?
Also maybe put dates to the frames that way we know if we are viewing last weeks frame or the one from 6 weeks ago. :salute
As for the squads that have not flown any bombers/attack missions. Nothing against them should be marked. They are simply getting what they want. CiC’s can use this information and spread it out more if they choose to.
<S>
-
I guess I personally don't appreciate the generous accommodations you've been given, I'm sorry.
5th Air Force is another squadron that requests fighters every frame, and we typically get them. Don't call the squads out when the CIC's are the ones responsible for the assignments. Perhaps you can talk to your peers about how they "share the love" when they're CIC? I purposefully give 5th Air Force the worst ride I can imagine when I'm CIC, to end any perception of me taking advantage of my position. But, again, CICs assign aircraft. Squad COs request aircraft. I'm sorry you guys don't get to fly fighters as much as you want, but don't blame those of us who do for it. I'm only CIC once every 12-16 frames. The two frames that I have been CIC for and you guys were on my side, you flew fighters.
-
I'm open to any suggestions though. It's just meant as a tool to help the CiCs and I only pointed out the squads to illustrate a point. I know they are only flying what was assigned by the CiC.
Who's calling squads out? Damn some of you really need to work on reading comprehension.
-
Couple things to keep in mind as you view this information.
Most CiC’s (including myself) will give a squad the bomber duty or less desirable one if they don’t update their preferences. How many of you have seen us flying in Europe and some squads still list F4U’s, NiK2’s, Ki-84’s etc. You get the idea. So those squads will most often get the undesirable ride.
Most CiC’s (including myself) will give a squad the bomber duty if they list ‘Any’ ride in their preference. There are a few squads that don’t really care that much what they get.
In just considering those two examples you can see why some squads might get more bomber duty than others.
Lastly Bug the 332nd was assigned SBD’s in both frames 2 and 3 (tonight’s). Some flew F6F’s others SBD’s. Not sure how you would list that in your chart, but I would not put us down just as Fighters. Maybe Attack for frames 2 and 3?
Also maybe put dates to the frames that way we know if we are viewing last weeks frame or the one from 6 weeks ago. :salute
As for the squads that have not flown any bombers/attack missions. Nothing against them should be marked. They are simply getting what they want. CiC’s can use this information and spread it out more if they choose to.
<S>
Was thinking of scoring any mission that a squad has to fly bombers, be it partial or full as a bomber mission.
-
Who's calling squads out? Damn some of you really need to work on reading comprehension.
You said in your OP:
Over the last 6 frames there has been 7 Squads that have not flown one bomber mission.
325th Checkertails, 412th Braunco Mustangs, JG-2, 357th Death Dragons, 327th Steel Talons, Mighty 316th, VMF-251.
And an additional 15 that have only flown one bomber mission.
353rd FG, The Damned, USMC/71 Sqn, VF-6, 13 MPG, 367th Dynamite Gang, 5th Airforce, 9GIAP, Army of Muppets, Claim Jumpers, Hellcat Fighter Group, JV44 Butcher Birds, Nightmares VMF-101, Rolling Thunder, The Unforgiven.
To most of us on the list, we would consider it being called out...
-
Was thinking of scoring any mission that a squad has to fly bombers, be it partial or full as a bomber mission.
Rgr. Then for frames 2 and 3 we flew bombers, well, SBD's. ;)
<S>
-
You said in your OP:
To most of us on the list, we would consider it being called out...
Consider it how ever ya want.
-
We had F6F's tonight, and our accompanying TBM's were wiped out short of target. All 16 of our F6F's held ord and made bomb runs on enemy CV. Attack sortie I suppose (?).
-
We had F6F's tonight, and our accompanying TBM's were wiped out short of target. All 16 of our F6F's held ord and made bomb runs on enemy CV. Attack sortie I suppose (?).
We had the same orders different area. We were heavy and had Zekes co-alt on our flanks with TBMs below us getting jumped by another set of Zekes and needing help.
I think they were whiped out as well. It was damned if you do or damned if you don't so we tried to press on with our attack. Good high low CAP scheme by the Japanese at C30.
:aok
-
Gonna keep an eye on this thread, it should be fun.
-
Here is TheBugs 2009 FSO Plane List, so in 2009 you have only flown bombers once more than the 412th has...
Only twice in Bombers...
The Bug
Bougainville Privateers
Ki-61
A6M5B
Ki-61
August Storm
N1K2
Ki84
Ki-61
Prelude to Stalemate
Bf109G2
Fw190A5
Bf109G6
Jubilee
Bf109F4
Not Present
Not Present
High Blue Battle
Not Present
Not Present
Not Present
Op Husky
FM2
B24J
P-38J
Turkey Shoot
F6F-5
SBD-5
F6F-5
-
Appreciate the work, Bug! :salute
But if we could agree to disagree, IMHO balancing the onerous duties (bombing) with the fun (escorting/intercepting) might best be left to the individual squad COs. They are the ones with the closest view of what their squad has been doing lately. A side C-in-C might be from a squad that's not familiar with all the FSO usual suspects. He might not know the individual squads at all. Of course, this kinda presumes that a C-in-C will get orders out early enough in the week <ahem!> to allow for some discussion. ;)
All that said, though, your table is a good way for a C-in-C to easily see that all squads get their fair share. Nice job.
-
Here is TheBugs 2009 FSO Plane List, so in 2009 you have only flown bombers once more than the 412th has...
Only twice in Bombers...
The Bug
Bougainville Privateers
Ki-61
A6M5B
Ki-61
August Storm
N1K2
Ki84
Ki-61
Prelude to Stalemate
Bf109G2
Fw190A5
Bf109G6
Jubilee
Bf109F4
Not Present
Not Present
High Blue Battle
Not Present
Not Present
Not Present
Op Husky
FM2
B24J
P-38J
Turkey Shoot
F6F-5
SBD-5
F6F-5
Only twice in Bombers?
:huh
Hmmm, I thought maybe Bug was coming on a little strong with the reading comprehension quote but Nef either you didn't take a good look at the logs... Or you're just outright being dishonest with the facts for whatever reason. In Operation Jubilee we (VF-17) flew Ju88s in Frame 3, in Operation High Blue we flew B-24s in Frame two. Because Bug wasn't present with us for those frames doesn't mean it didn't happen or we as a squad didn't participate.The way you presented your facts by showing just one pilot from the squadron is very misleading and a cheap trick. So the real truth is we've flown bombers four straight FSOs now in a row and your squadron has flown them once according to your post. A lot of respect I had for you just went out the window with that cheap stunt. I guess constant accommodation makes you feel like you can get away with anything.
-
As of last night half of the Allied squads can have another Bomber run added including VF-17
:salute
-
If am I incorrect in saying that your squad flew fighter missions 6 straight frames in a row Nef, please point out the frame where you didn't and I will most definitely correct the table.
This is a tool for CiCs, they are free to use it in any manner. If there are other considerations they are most definitely not obligated to give anyone, any specific ride. I just hope most CiCs are aware of what missions squads have been assigned lately and make efforts to mix things up a little bit. The table should help with that data collection.
I can hardly see how anyone would think it would be a bad thing. At worst I would think some may not have a desire to use in making orders, that is their perogative.
I wonder why some of you are getting worked up about just tabulating the facts?? My target is the CiCs not the squadrons, I'm just reporting what I've seen. I also for one would love to have fighters for 6 frames in a row and would be very appreciative. But I most definitely wouldn't be frazzled by someone pointing it out.
-
Like I said, the 412th appreciates and thanks all the CiC's who honor our Aircraft Preferences.
If your point was to pick out the CICs, than why not go directly to DD with your fact finding mission or call the CiCs out collectively and not the squads who follow their orders.
<S>
-
First of all I would like to :salute and thank everyone that has volunteered their time and effort to make FSO what it is and what we don't want it to become, the MA.
I enjoy the FSO, and hope that we keep it as pure as possible and that nothing is happening that would take away from this event as preferential treatment from a rouge CIC.
Some have made some valid points about Mission Assignments and would like to share my concern as well, this is by no means a blast or cheap shot at any squad or CIC.
I don't like this idea one bit, I am sure that at some point it will or has been abused by allowing certain squads, players fly a specific ride that they wanted more often than not and the "less popular" or "rest of us" just have to accept what we have been assigned.
We have flown FSO for some time now and our turn in the bucket has come around a couple times for the perk rides, but we had to pay dearly for our shot at it by volunteering for the worst plane sets.
What is intersting to know is:
1. Do any other squads that fly uber rides in FSO make these types of sacrifices that we have to get the uber rides, or do they get decent rides by default because they are "in" with the CIC?
2. I wish we could determine the worst plane set in each FSO and see what squads flown them, sort of some type of tracker.
I think they should determine and assign a number value to each squad and when your number is up you get to pick what ride you fly in that order, the next week after your the "1st" pick squad you drop to the bottom of the list again until your first. Sort of rotate in that manner.
-
On another note the largest squads will more often have some bombers assigned for a couple of reasons.
1. They have the ability to communicate with some of their fighter support better since they are in the same squad.
2. Squads must and should be kept together on the same target. This leaves little choice for the CiC's and results in split plane assignments.
3. Squads that don't update their preferences are automatically assumed to not mind bomber assignments. They almost always wind up with them.
In the last couple of frames there were a large amount of targets. A few were only able to be attacked by a single squad due to the numbers involved. They had to be split up.
I don't think there is any major favortism out there. If there is it would be one squad giving another a favor, not several.
I think the format of the sheet is a great idea and will help future CiC's with their job.
If the sheet will be updated weekly another column with current ride preference would help as well.
:salute
-
I don't think bomber assignments or the lack of them has much to do with favortism at all. Is that what has some of you with your panties in a bind? I believe it is just somewhat random luck( or unluck) based in the, objectives, squadron size, lack of information the CiC has or just the CiC not caring.
Hopefully some CiCs will be able to utilize this table. It should cause no harm to any squad. The truth is the truth and that is all it shows.
-
I wonder why some of you are getting worked up about just tabulating the facts?? My target is the CiCs not the squadrons, I'm just reporting what I've seen. I also for one would love to have fighters for 6 frames in a row and would be very appreciative. But I most definitely wouldn't be frazzled by someone pointing it out.
Because, the way you have presented your information up to this point makes it seem as though you think some squadrons are getting over. And, personally, I have no idea where you and Shifty found the immense chip on your shoulders, but you should drop it. You may be correct--perhaps Nef and I are misunderstanding your point, but its because you've poorly communicated up to now, and not because we should chill out. We have one of these threads about once a year, and its always the same thing, just different squads.
EDIT: And Shifty, if you really think Nef was purposefully manipulating the facts, you're way off track. Grow up.
-
I don't think they are "getting over". I know they are getting over. I'm hoping to eliminate that somewhat, not gonna deny that.
-
Because, the way you have presented your information up to this point makes it seem as though you think some squadrons are getting over. And, personally, I have no idea where you and Shifty found the immense chip on your shoulders, but you should drop it. You may be correct--perhaps Nef and I are misunderstanding your point, but its because you've poorly communicated up to now, and not because we should chill out. We have one of these threads about once a year, and its always the same thing, just different squads.
EDIT: And Shifty, if you really think Nef was purposefully manipulating the facts, you're way off track. Grow up.
Stoney you've displayed a chip on your shoulder in this thread as much as anyone. The forums are a tool for communication. If somebody has an issue they should be able to bring it up in the forums. If you don't like the fact that the issue was brought up... That's your business. However as a CM you should have an open mind and give things fair consideration. You should also be willing, not just willing but striving to see the FSO be an event fairly offering the same opportunities to all squads. Also people should be able to question and point out problems without CMs just blatantly dismissing it or much less taking offense to it as you seem to be doing. If this is too much for you maybe you need to grow up.
Fact is we have been flying more than our share of buff missions. All Bug was trying to do was come up with a process to help CMs spread it out a bit.
Bug suggested a tool to help and for that you and a few others are getting huffy.
As far as Nef, he posted false information about our squad and has yet to admit it was false. You'll even go as far as to defend that when it's obvious it was untrue. I didn't hurt his credability... He did and you're hurting your own now.
-
nevermind. :noid
-
As far as Nef, he posted false information about our squad and has yet to admit it was false. You'll even go as far as to defend that when it's obvious it was untrue. I didn't hurt his credability... He did and your hurting your own now.
If I can duck the purses flying around here long enough to inject some sanity..
Shifty, Nef didn't say your squadron.. he said Bug's personal individual flying. Note that it included time flying with JG11 until his Hiatus in April.
Also, this melee is totally useless and unnecessary between 4 good people. The CiCs are the ones responsible for who flies what. Anyone who flies FSOs knows that some squadrons get more preferential rides than others, but until the CiCs take the time to keep track of who has flown what and what people WANT to fly it is going to continue.
When I was CiC back in January I did a spread sheet for the event.. It helps being in charge of Frame 3. It kept track of who had requested what, what their average flight #s were, and whether they had flown a "premium" ride that FSO.
http://www.51hangar.net/FSO/FSOSQDASSIGN.xls
Feel free to use it people, especially those in charge frames 2 and 3.
-
Fencer,
The reason this came up was because of VF-17 pulling bomber duty in four straight FSOs.
Bug is the VF-17 FSO commander we asked him to look into it last month when we got buff duty for the third straight FSO and almost got a fourth in that same scenario because another CIC tried to put us in buffs two weeks in a row. It has nothing to do with Bug's record before he came into VF-17. It's always been about VF-17 not Bug.
-
This is just me thinking in print here and nothing more. But it makes sense to me that small squads would not tend to get bomber duty. Why? Well usually you need some numbers to take a target down, putting 2 or 3 small squads together to accomplish this, would tend to lead to the job maybe not getting done IMO. Not saying they would not try, but a larger squad knows itself, their CO knows everyones abilities.
There is one target and one mission commander, they will work better as one. Several smaller squads together could lead to the proverbial "Too many chiefs, not enough indians"
My squad, we take what were are given, we do our share of bombing, some attack ( though I'd like to do more, but thats just me) and we get fighters, usually as CAP.
Anyways thats just my take, not saying its right or wrong. Just seems to be the common approach to me.
<S>
Looks like Becinhu beat me to this one, sorry
It might be in best interest of some very small squadrons to "sister" up with a larger squad. We have the 613th joined up with us just for the reason you mention above.
With smaller squadrons, until the time that they either have more of their members fly FSO or recruit to larger numbers, by joining another squadron in FSO takes care of alot of concerns. Also it helps with mission and unit cohesion for them as they are married up with different flying styles each week.
-
Bug good point to bring up in general. And there have been several good replies. And here is my normal long winded reply :)
Having CIC'ed a few of these myself I always send out a "Plane ride request" before i publish the orders and for the most part i am able to give the responding squads what they want. The Plane ride request is a technique that we have gotten away from in the last few months and we should all go back to sending them out. And as most of you know from my emails you get asked: What do you want fly? What did you fly during the last Frames? What kind of a mission profile would you prefer?
When I select squads for missions its normally based off of squad size and abilities. There are squads in this game that not only have a pack of killers in them but they are organized and can organize others. Bug your guys being one of them the AK's are another. Those squads get the hard missions accomplished so i give Strike Commands to those squads or if I need squad of killers to hold a gap I'll place the 412th or 9Gaip into that hole and know they will hold it and kill at the rate of 3 to 1 or better. Sometimes you just need shear "Mass" of a good large squad to defend a target and i place a large squad there like 332nd, LCA or the 68th. Most importantly there are a few squads that read the Op Orders and if they don't like it they will alter the plan which can make or break an overall mission if timing is critical and you don't show up on time. Those CO's and squads I place into locations where a higher level of control can be placed on them. "Fencer" is widely known for his bomber abilities which then implies that if he can hit nearly any target his squad or "Strike package" will as well. Yes i have given him Strike Package missions because of past performance. I'll place VMF-251 into more complex strike package profiles because i like the way Saxman plans his missions and coordinates with other squads. Also without naming the squads there are few squads i will never place into bombers as it would be a waste of talent over their abilities in fighter AC. Yes i have a little black book on you all :noid
Small squads I normally "attach" to other larger squads as scouts or to hold gaps etc. Regardless of abilities of the small small squads like 5th AF who give better than they get, in this game the smaller squads are at a BIG disadvantage regardless of their abilities. Also a 5 man bomber force just cant carry the ORD poundage needed to distroy most targets. If a 5 man squad runs up against LCA manning at 27 they would likely die or at least be pushed out of sector. So I attach them to larger elements. If they are attached they "probably" will not get the perked or primary AC. Just a fact as an attachment you can't expect to run the show.
There are a few squads in this game that you know will not always "man" at the strength you can count on so I will not place these squads into locations where the battle will become pivotal. Example: 11-15 man squad shows up with 2 to a FSO and the 2 that do are not from the leadership team and have no idea what to do. Had that happen to me one night as CIC and I wont forget it either.
Lastly when i send out a ride request and the squad doesn't answer it........ well they get what i select for them not only in plane types but in squad missions as well. To me that says a lot if none on your email list can answer a email. Historically I only receive replies from 50 - 75% at best. What I will say is that before I send out a ride request i can almost guarantee who will respond. Bug your one of them who always responds quickly and to the point :D and Daddog with his normal "Put us in where you need us we just love being here". Or AKDogg with his normal reply for all perked AC LOL.
I won't mind having a "Master List" of who's flown what or how say over the last 10 frames and i would take that into consideration as I planned and i stress the word "consideration". But don't force me into placing a squad into type of AC as that then forces me into placing them into a mission profile type that I may not want them in or they can likely accomplish.
What would help me more is a list of historical manning strength, lose to kill ratio's, objects destroyed, bomb hit percentages. That is more relevant to planning over what someone flew. But in the end if I am the Side CIC I am going to plan a mission that we can accomplish and win. And hard missions will get the "perked" AC and Strike Package command and control functions will go to the squads and CO's with a history of being able to organize it and accomplish the missions especially after the first bullets fly past the windshields. I would like to believe that when others have CIC duties the 325th VFG comes to mind in a positive way and we are placed into the fight where he believes we can do the most for the team. And if that is in Fighters and not Bombers so be it we can do both well I think.
Bug to the very first email you posted: Yes the 325th VFG hasn't had a true bomber mission lately in fact I can't remember being in a bomber since the last 8th AF missions over germany about a year ago I think. But we have flown several JABO's in fighter AC last night being one of them (F-6's and ORD's). But also I would add that the 325th VFG has been on the sides where "defending" was more of a primary mission than attacking and I think that contributed to the 325th VFG being placed into fighters more than bombers as well.
Lastly and for whats its worth to all: About a year or so ago the 325th VFG was going through a phase in which we got crap planes and missions in my opinion. I looked internally and saw why. We didn't have good manning numbers and we weren't completing missions to standard and were getting wiped out to the man in nearly every mission. So i took actions internally to correct that and I think we are in a better position today then back then and the logs show it. I would hope that the 325th VFG is now selected for missions based on ability and past performance and not just selected as a "filler" squad because they don't recognize our squads name.
:salute
Viper 61
Ops Officer
325th VFG
-
Good post Viper.
<S>
Fencer I appreciate you sharing your CIC tools. That looks to be very useful, thanks.
-
I don't think they are "getting over". I know they are getting over. I'm hoping to eliminate that somewhat, not gonna deny that.
:rofl
-
Excellent post Viper.
-
It might be in best interest of some very small squadrons to "sister" up with a larger squad. We have the 613th joined up with us just for the reason you mention above.
With smaller squadrons, until the time that they either have more of their members fly FSO or recruit to larger numbers, by joining another squadron in FSO takes care of alot of concerns. Also it helps with mission and unit cohesion for them as they are married up with different flying styles each week.
353rd FG has three member of Jg-54 flying with us. I think it is a great idea to have a small sqad to join a larger sqad
-
I like that chart, good job. <S>
-
Great post Viper61 :aok
:salute
BigRat
-
Nice work bug. But the 334th has flown bombers twice in this most recent FSO, not just once, for a total of 3 out of 6 frames.
-
I have to update it to include frame 3, and put the actual frame names at the top of the columns to make it clearer.
Stampf's example is definitely an attack mission. Sometimes an attack mission may get listed as fighter if I am going strictly by what the logs show, but it is AHwiki so if you see a mistake feel free to correct it.
-
Good idea, Bug. Just edited our last Frame. :salute
-
As long as the information is updated weekly it might be a good tool.
-
Wow, really Bug? :huh
-
Wow, really Bug? :huh
Huh?
-
I just added the JG11 assignments for Tacloban. :salute
Could someone (with better c0d1ng sk1llz than mine) please add a column for Tacloban Frame 3, and let Husky Frame 3 roll off? Thanks!
-
... Could someone (with better c0d1ng sk1llz than mine) please add a column for Tacloban Frame 3, and let Husky Frame 3 roll off? Thanks!
Done. I puzzled it out. Ghaaack! What a dreadful scripting language!
EDIT: added roles for all Axis squads in Tacloban. Please let me know if I've made any mistakes. Thanks! :salute
-
Keep it going! Still a lot of blanks there...
VF-17 Jolly Rogers
(+) Precision
*LYNCHMOB*
13 MPG
327th Steel Talons
367th Dynamite Gang
5th Airforce
9GIAP VVS RKKA
CLAIM JUMPERS
free spirits
Hellcat Fighter Group
LCA
Mighty 316th
Nightmares VMF-101
Rolling Thunder
VMF-251 The Buccaneers
364th C-HAWKS FG
Air Raiders
FATE
THE UNFORGIVEN