Aces High Bulletin Board
Special Events Forums => Friday Squad Operations => Topic started by: AKKuya on October 24, 2009, 01:20:05 PM
-
Went to Special Events and saw the Example CIC Orders. Even logged into the site, the page read "You're not authorized to view this resource".
Thought I pass this along to the CM staff. :salute
-
How about now?
Still a work in progress. I have several others (Viper, Saxman, couple others..) that I have not put up yet. I figured I might as well make it public. :)
-
We can see them now. Thanks :salute Those are fantastic sets of orders.
:salute to all who volunteered their samples!!!!!!
-
:O
I am honored that you posted my 'High Blue' CIC orders Daddog. :salute
<<<Hopes people will use all of these examples... Great ideah sir... Tuk151
-
If your going to change the rules, change the rules. Don't hide them in the example CiC orders.
Actually what the CM's should do is just write the freaking CiC's orders for each side. It should be win-win situation for the designers. The event will play out exactly as the envision and the orders to each side will never be late. :rofl
I would love to say more, but civility prevents it. :furious
-
If your going to change the rules, change the rules. Don't hide them in the example CiC orders.
Actually what the CM's should do is just write the freaking CiC's orders for each side. It should be win-win situation for the designers. The event will play out exactly as the envision and the orders to each side will never be late. :rofl
I would love to say more, but civility prevents it. :furious
Wow, Did your football team loose today or something?
Very sharp your remarks are.... :headscratch:
-
:huh
Change what rules? What am I missing here?
-
In the invalid attack example it is stated that it is against the rules to not assign a seperate attack for each target.
Rules state:
- 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.
The rules do not seem to exempt someone from massing two attack groups across 2 targets as long as each are assigned 1 target as primary and hit the last by T+60. And this has been done plenty of times in the past. I have read something recantly that this may change. If the examples were made with this in mind, perhaps the rules should have been up dated first and then the examples put up.
-
The Invalid attack example will also be posted to the rules section. It was an oversight that is being rectified. I thought it had been posted to the rule section in the October FSO but it wasn't. We CM's are working on this issue and will get it in the right place.
I believe the graphic examples though explain why we made this decision and it is has purely been made for game play reasons and has been thoroughly discussed among the FSO CMs. While the Oct. FSO worked out fine and all targets were hit and saw combat previous FSO actually did experience only the first target in a chain being hit and the follow on targets not being attacked.
While we do our best not to straight jackets CiCs and provide the most flexibility we as CMs also have to consider the big picture and game play. This is the reason for us saying that follow on attacks (hit target A then continue on and hit target B) does not count as valid attacks anymore for hitting two targets. We have had several examples this year of squads going:
"Hey the base we were defending was not attacked, what happened? We spent xx many minutes online for nothing!" Sometimes this is do to an attack force being slaughtered but yes there have been times when it was also do to a follow on attack that hit the first target but did not continue onto the second target.
Let me state again that the concentration of force and defeating an enemy in detail are valid tactics. However, when taken past a certain point they do cause game play issues. There were no issues in the October FSO with this type of strategy. However, there have been enough issues previous to October that we decided to modify the rules. As for their placement, we apologize for that and are working on making them public on the AHevent site and in the appropriate place. They were not design to be a gotcha.
For those who have not seen what we are talking about it is these:
(http://ahevents.org/images/stories/FSO/attack-example-invalid-1.gif)
(http://ahevents.org/images/stories/FSO/attack-example-valid-1.gif)
(http://ahevents.org/images/stories/FSO/attack-example-valid-2.gif)
-
As stated this is just an organization thing where the graphics were created first. I believed that the rules section and examples page had been updated at the same time. They have not been and the rules section will be updated to reflect this change.
Currently the two are out of sync. Again this is not an attempt to do a gotcha on anybody this is simply a web page update / creation over site which will be remedied.
Daddog created the example CiC orders and included my graphics in them. I have not updated the rule section as of yet.
I apologize for any confusion or angst this has caused anyone because the two pages are currently out of sync.
-
I would also like to make a comment about the addition of rules. We CMs add rules do to the evolution of game play to cover events that happen or have shown that they can adversely affect game play. This doesn't me they do it every time but it means when that they have had some very negative affects (in the case of this rule addition it stems from an event in the July 2009 FSO but also had similiar events with negative events previous to that incident).
As I said our rules evolve and grow over time.
- Originally their was no T+60 rule. It was instituted after it CiCs started planning their attacks to hit targets at the T+90 or greater mark in attempt to put bombers and escorts over targets after the defenders had to land to refuel. Resulting in quite a few squads complaining about flying for 90 minutes or longer with no combat.
- The all Targets must be attack and defended rule came in existence because several CiCs started to either not attack or not defend all their targets and instead concentrated on attacking or defending just what they considered high value targets (concentrating their forces while writing off certain objectives). This resulted in some squads seeing no action at all while others pig piled by a massively superior force.
- Next we had to start defining a credible force must attack and defend all targets since some CiCs started sending in 1 plane to attack a target to fulfill the all targets must be attacked by strafing a base. Same thing happened on defense with a lone 4-6 squad (say average 3 pilots) tasked to defend a single base all by themselves.
- We also instituted the min and max rule on plane types since at one juncture we didn't mandate that all the planes in a planeset be used. So many CiCs opted not to use the planes they considered dogs at all. Then when we did mandate in designs that all planes in a planeset needed to be used some CiCs tasked 1 pilot to fly a Yak9u and put everybody else in a La7. Which lead to the min and max rule on plane types we use now.
I can site the reasoning behind other rules and rest assure we do discuss them before hand and do try to deal with issues as they arise first by other means instead of rules. We also do build in flexibility which is why we have to review each frame and make judgment calls to see if a rule was met or not do to circumstance.
e.g. An attack force being destroyed before getting to a target still counts as an attempted attack.
e.g. An attack force bombing a target, say CVs, but missing with all their bombs or just hitting say with one bomb still count as an attack.
-
I agree with the new Attack Rules but maybe I missed the explanation for this above. Example CiC Orders 2 ( http://ahevents.org/fso-related/example2.html ) Should be switched for one that is not in violation of the new rules. Or possibly ad to the following information that it is against the rules, cause right now it reads like what he did was ok. (Which it was at the time).
Here is an example by Tuk151. Tuk added some pictures to his orders which give is a WWII 'flavor' if you will. Many enjoy doing that. You can also tell that he included more information. Information that is not required, but could be helpful listing. Some of which included the active bases, targets and their locations, value of ground targets, arena settings, and wind. Squads were divided into ‘strike packages’ and he then listed those and included a strat map. Please note that in some routes/strike packages he has assigned two targets.
What is important to note is he also assigned multiple squads to those single routes, that had multiple targets. For example the blue strike package has a minimum of 65 aircraft to strike both targets. This tactic is only a problem when you have single squads assigned to attack multiple targets. If that single squad is wiped out after their 1st target they would never reach their 2nd target leaving a squad to circle a base for 2 hours that would never be attacked.
Not trying to point fingers or anything, just seems confusing. :)
-
So what is going on here is that after discussion and weighing the negatives and considering how often this sort of thing happens and how often it throws game play out of balance we decided to add on another rule.
Simply put assigning two forces to hit target A and then jointly hit target B counts as a valid attack on target A and not target B. In the July incident this was the strategy used and target B was not attacked at all do to the combat over target A. As a CM we could not rule that target B not being hit was okay when the combined tasked force was given an option of rearming instead of continuing on to target B. Or the fact that they were mauled at target A (50 - 75 miles away from target B) trying to hit target A and not B.
The key thing here is that we find follow on attacks to have more negative results on game play than positive. A good CiC, AKWxMn, can manage and mitigate these inherent risks. In his frame 2 BoB attack plan he gave time marks for his forces. He said Force A you must hit target A by T+37. Force A you must be over target B by T+45.
He gave very concise, solid and informative orders. This usually does not happen and even with such orders a CiC basically hopes that once the battle plan is put into action that it is executed well. As I said his orders were perfect and were perfectly executed. Back in the July FSO the result was the not the same. One target was pig piles and another target was not hit at all.
Now, we tried to build in flexibility into this and that is why we had graphic examples to show that you can go:
Force A and Force B fly together to this way point (or even to target A). Then force A hit target A and force B push on and hit target B. The key here is push on. Not hit target A then afterwards conduct a follow on attack on target B.
This way the CMs and everyone involved knows that there are two distinct attacks that have equal value. Force B is not tempted to go .. oh, force A didn't damage the target so we should use our bombs here instead of going after target B.
I can go on about the reasoning but hopefully you get the gist that this about trying to make sure that we have good and fun game play for everybody (or at least the chance of good and fun game play for everybody). If all we cared was about who won then it would be simple for all those involved.
Here are your targets, here the planes you can use, and here is the scoring system. Whoever has the most points win, end of deal. No T+60, no all targets need to be attack, no all targets need to be defended, etc., etc.
-
Correct this was a valid tactic at the time those orders were created. We are instituting it for upcoming FSOs (and a admin CM still can say I am not using this rule, they just have to put that in their special rules). So yes need to post a clarification that these orders may not reflect the most current rules now being used.
Agreed, it is confusing and also needs to be on the rules page. Working on clarifying things and posting them in appropriate spots.
-
I understand why the rules were implemented, I just wanted make sure you guys knew about Example 2. :salute :cheers:
-
Thanks Nef. :)
-
Understood Nef and :salute.
Just trying to explain to others who hold a negative view point on why and also that yes, we need to clarify where we post these things.
-
Wow, this thread has really got some traction going on CIC orders. 250-300 players are the Rank and File players who just show up and fly the planes the Squad CO's tell them to. For the rest of the FSO players that steer the event, this will be an illuminating piece of information! :salute
-
From seeing both sides as a pilot and one-time CiC with the normal accuracy that most targets are hit in FSO why would anyone in their right mind assign one group two targets? The exception is jabo attacks which seem to be the most accurate, but a jabo can hit two fields with any hope of success or survival.
-
The main reason for "follow on attacks" is to create a large numerical superiority over the defenders. Say you have two targets so normally you assign an escort group and attack group for each. Lets say 15 escorts and 15 attack planes per attack force versus lets lay 15 defenders. By bundling the two attacks together you now have 30 escorts and 30 attack planes versus the 15 defenders.
The hope is that your numerical advantage increases your chances of putting down the defenders at the first target increases while the percentage of losses you suffer decreases. Also with more planes available as an overall escort you can also shift the makeup of your force to have more escorts since you hope more bombers survive to drop on target. Basically you assemble a very large force and defeat an enemy in detail via two engagements instead of one. 60 planes (30 fighters / 30 attack) vs 15 defending fighters then have a second battle with your survivors versus another 15 enemy fighters).
While a valid strategy we have several game play issues though, some of which have been discussed, that can and have resulted in unsatisfactory evenings for participants.
Basically it is the same reason why we come up with side splits to give each side a reasonable chance of winning an FSO frame. Instead of doing some more historical setups where one side has no chance at all do several factors.
So it is very valid strategy it is that it just can result in several game play issues.
-
For god sakes end the squads running things. Form Command teams and rotate a few people through them. Conduct interviews etc. pick people who will do the right thing and be done with all the petty rules. This same sort of action took place in KOTH and it isn't fun now that you need your lawyer on speed dial to fly the event.
Vlkyrie1
-
I think is excellent that squad CO's get to do orders.
(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-dance004.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
I happen to think it makes a better CO.
(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-transport032.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
When i did my frirst CiC I learned somethings that I think made me a better CO for my squad.
(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-chores015.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
I hope CO's will keep doing the orders every week, because that is what makes FSO unpredictable.
:salute
Just my .02
(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-stargate003.gif) (http://www.thescifiworld.net/smilies.htm)
-
No worries Chappy, CM’s will never start doing the orders. The success of FSO falls largely on the C.O.’s stepping up and giving up a couple hours of their personal time every week.
As frustrating as the rules and regulations are, the focus is and always will be to enhance the game play for the players. If someone thinks 80 or 100 aircraft swarming over a squad of 15 and then steam rolling on to the next base with a squad of 10, and the next base with a squad of 12 etc., is fun then your sadly mistaken. The Admin CM’s and myself will do what is necessary to avoid that kind of disaster for the squads who would bear the brunt of such a plan. As ghostdancer pointed out, it has been a valid strategy in the past, but it can and has made for a very disappointing evening for some.
-
For god sakes end the squads running things. Form Command teams and rotate a few people through them. Conduct interviews etc. pick people who will do the right thing and be done with all the petty rules. This same sort of action took place in KOTH and it isn't fun now that you need your lawyer on speed dial to fly the event.
Vlkyrie1
Its certainly a temptation after a few CICs put some ineffective orders out. However, I do not believe in the "break enough dishes and soon Momma doesn't want you to wash them" philosophy, which is, in my opinion, what this would be. Good CICs should not be "rewarded" by having to do the orders more frequently. The bottom line is that each and every Squadron CO is responsible for assembling orders, and it should stay that way. The community has the ability to help, assist, coach, mentor, etc. those that are new or need help. Beyond that, peer pressure should be able to sustain timelines, quality, and effectiveness.
-
If someone thinks 80 or 100 aircraft swarming over a squad of 15 and then steam rolling on to the next base with a squad of 10, and the next base with a squad of 12 etc., is fun then your sadly mistaken. The Admin CM’s and myself will do what is necessary to avoid that kind of disaster for the squads who would bear the brunt of such a plan. As ghostdancer pointed out, it has been a valid strategy in the past, but it can and has made for a very disappointing evening for some.
QFT. Been on the receiving end of such steamrollers plenty of times.
-
As frustrating as the rules and regulations are, the focus is and always will be to enhance the game play for the players. If someone thinks 80 or 100 aircraft swarming over a squad of 15 and then steam rolling on to the next base with a squad of 10, and the next base with a squad of 12 etc., is fun then your sadly mistaken. The Admin CM’s and myself will do what is necessary to avoid that kind of disaster for the squads who would bear the brunt of such a plan. As ghostdancer pointed out, it has been a valid strategy in the past, but it can and has made for a very disappointing evening for some.
IMHO what has started out as the intent of the CM's to insure that all participants see action within a reasonable amount of time, is turning into micro management of the event. You are hamstringing the CiC's as to what they can do creatively. I envision that each frame from here on out will be exactly like the previous one, particularly on large maps where travel routes and time restrictions will limit anything but a straight line from A to B within the first 60 minutes.
Swarming or dogpiling as some have called it, can be defend for if the opposing CiC can see the possibility of it occurring. It all depends upon the creativity of the CiC. Also the designer must take some of the responsibility for the necessity of this tactic. Particularly on large maps with targets close to one another, and with one side that is strictly defensive. In such a case defending close targets allows mutual support, which in its own way is dogpiling in reverse.
And finally, this is not your kids T-Ball game. Not everyone gets to hit the ball all the time. We all know that at times things may not go our way, but as adults we should
be able to deal with it.
-
IMHO what has started out as the intent of the CM's to insure that all participants see action within a reasonable amount of time, is turning into micro management of the event. You are hamstringing the CiC's as to what they can do creatively. I envision that each frame from here on out will be exactly like the previous one, particularly on large maps where travel routes and time restrictions will limit anything but a straight line from A to B within the first 60 minutes.
Actually, larger maps allow the action to be spread out, with more opportunity to avoid going straight from point 'a' to point 'b', and reduce the ability for a CiC to assemble the horde described. Small terrains with too few targets, concentrate all the action into a narrow front that allows assembling a horde in spite of the CM directives.
-
There are two components to this why CMs have an issue with it. So I will address the one that finally convinced me that some clarification needed to be made.
I don't generally have a problem with Dogpile or swarm attacks. Why? Because yes, the defense force at the first target is out numbered but remember that the attackers are burning fuel at their full rate, probably using up their WEP, using up ammo, possibly losing alt, and becoming disorganized / less cohesive than they were before the engagement. Resulting in the fact that they are less capable of effective combat at the second target. The defense force there will have an easier time of things because they have not used their WEP up, they have no used their ammo, they have not taken damage, etc.
Of course it sucks for the first group of defenders. And yes, an engaged CiC who is actively watching the whole battle and coordinating all of his forces can definitely compensate to an extent in the face of these attacks. I can detach part of a nearby defense force and send it to help. Of course he has to make a decision that because of the size of the attack force that it has been tasked to hit to areas and that the defenders he are rushing in are from the attack forces next target. That is a hard thing to know and is the risk any CiC runs when making battlefield decisions. All part of the game.
However, the defender is still at a bit of a disadvantage here because he has to defend all his targets. He can't really decide to abandon one before it is attacked. So the best he can really do is send some of the defenders from point A to point B. Also remember in most designs CMs try to place targets 50 miles apart (2 sectors). What does this mean? It means that most defending squads take up defensive positions between what they are defending and where they expect an attack would come from but also in a position to react quickly to an attack from an unexpected corner.
Now lets say a whole squad leaves and goes to help another defense force 50 miles away. At a speed of 300mph it will take them 10 minutes to get there. Now lets say the enemy is actually picked up farther out so that the original defending force picks them, falls back and calls for help. Depending on where they pick them up the help would probably arrive either say 10 - 15 miles forward of the base being attacked or over the base being attacked.
So they are 10 - 13 minute now out of position for depending their own base. The time back can be even greater depending on what time period, plane set, and the fact that the defenders could have given up alt and or energy (they are low and slow). Meaning they are gambling heavily that the attack they are helping to defend against is targeting them next and their is not a separate attack on the way to their base.
I would say that the defender is at a disadvantage since his forces are chained to defense targets and can't completely abandon them. But there are still things he can do (send in reinforcements from two bases in distance, resulting in only weaking those two areas slightly .. send in 2 planes from 2 bases for a total of 4 more pilots can help .. or 3 and 3 for 6 more pilots).
So a dogpile or swarm attack can be mitigated to some extent by the defending CiC's actions but do realize that the defending force is limited to an extent, per above.
Now where I convinced this was an issue was not by the swarming attack but by the follow on portion. Simply put a follow on attack only guarantees an attempted attack at the first target. As stated the issue that final caused all this about happened in the July FSO. Here is the map from the frame that final caused the CMs to decide that clarification of the credible attack rules as needed.
(http://dgideon.org/aceshigh/follow_on_attacks.jpg)
As you see there is plenty of distance between two targets, they were not placed to close together. Also you will see that there were much closer launch bases to some targets so routes that had to traverse 10+ sectors were unnecessary.
Here are the orders for one of the strike groups:
follow white line at 3000ft.Target 1 and 2. hit one and rearm at 29 if needed,if you have load left proceed to 2
you get a second life in plane of choice so if your targets are dead up a a6m loaded and regroup as defense or watch for text of valid targets,otherwise regroup and keep hitting your targets
The CiC in this case, also in cases previous to July, did not understand that target 2 was not optional. It had to be attacked in the T+60 window. Also it is just common sense, or we assumed it was, that an attack plan would be constructed that would enable an attack force to hit a target within the T+60 window. As said this was the latest example that were wrong on that account.
Even if things went fine again you are stuck in a position where the attack on target 2 might not happen. Since they are going into battle at target 1 and could be destroyed, use all their ordinance there, etc., etc. What does this means? It means as a judge I can't say that a credible attack was done on 2. I can't judge that attack was attempted on 2 since the force was instructed to attack one and then continue on. They could be stopped cold 50 miles away from target 2. Does this count as being intercepted or does not .. after all they actively attacked a target. They were not intercepted going to target 2.
In my opinion this is what concerns me more than the concentration of forces. A follow on attack does not guarantee an attack on a the second target no matter what a CiC instructs to his troops. It also muddies the picture to an extent that for the second target all you can go by is whether the target 2 took damage or not? Then of course you are stuck with the question how much damage? Is it a credible attack if the bundled attack force spend all their ordinance at target 1 except for maybe 10%? Is it a valid attack on target 2 if only 1 bomber or 1 formation holds back bombs from hitting target 1 to attack target 2? How do CMs know how much ordinance is reserved for each target? Realistically we can only tell by bomb hits so lets say the attack force kept back 30% of their bomb load to hit target 2 but completely missed (remember in BoB frame 1 the LW bomb effectiveness was like 30% overall .. so it can happen). So if they miss how does the CM know if they just missed or if say instead they ran out of bombs at frame 1 or only let loose maybe 1 bombers worth of bombs?
On a non follow through attack I can tell from a CiCs orders what was assigned and intended. Force A with an escort squad of Y and a bomber squad Z was tasked to hit target 1. If they miss I still know they were carrying xxxx amount of ordinance soley intended for target 1. If they got intercepted I can go they were intercepted and destroyed while trying to get to target. Follow on attacks muddy the picture to much for me to make anything but Draconian calls on target 2.
Can we compensate for this via design? To some extent yes. If targets are within 25 miles of each other we can and I believe have (will have to dig up some of my old designs) designate both fields as a single target .. allowing for the bundling of attacks and defenders. However, when bases are spread out farther than that we run into the disadvantage issue to the defender (which they can partially compensate for) but then have issues determine and judging an attack on target 2.
If you increase things to 75 miles the issue remains. If you increase to 100 miles then you start to have an issue of flight times where after the attack on the target the defenders might as well land since it is a 20 minute flight to the next defensive target. Meaning they say engage in battle at T+50, by T+60 things are done, refueled and reup say by T+70, now it would take them to T+90 to get to another base to help with the defense, probably longer since they have to add in time to get to altitude (assuming they were flying at 300 mph the whole time). So you start to see that at 100 mile spread between bases it basically means defend your target and when the fight is done basically you don't have time for anything else.
This is why we usually go with around 50 miles between bases and have done so for many, many, many FSOs.
The other issue is of course that now a dedicated attack was not in place for 2. Just hit 1 and continue onto 2 but quite a few things might develop during the battle that prevents this. Meaning that defenders at 2 might end up flying 120 minutes and have no action. People tend to get upset over this and we CMs do get email over it on a fairly consistent basis. When we can say, hey an attack was planned but your allied squads stopped it they accept that and understand these things happen.
When you get one force of defenders swarmed and a second group flying with no action at all you start to see where the problem is. As stated this is not because of an isolate event or anything from just one FSO. This discussion about multiple incidents has been going on probably for over a year now with us finally agreeing we need to clarify things in July.
Then do to a web update mixup one page was updated but the other was not.
-
Large maps make sure, generally, that we can get a 50 mile spacing between targets and also have a good selection of launch bases for the attackers not to far from their targets.
Remember every setup takes these things into account. Some setups are built so that they only allow for one strike on a target. Others are built to allow a strike, return to base, and second strike if needed. The difference usually comes from trying to balance other factors. For instance if only one strike can reasonable be done it is probably done to make sure that one sides greater numbers (especially in ordinance capability) is now balance that they need to be accurate in their drops and only get one shot at it.
Spreading out the targets usually makes sure that no more than two forces can be bundled together on the way to two targets separated by 50 miles. The clarification makes sure that the defenders at target 1 only will be facing at the most 2 escort groups and one attack group. Instead of 2 escort groups and 2 attack groups.
The combination of the two .. distance of 50 miles or more spread and making sure every target has an attack / bomber force assigned to hit it as a primary target (not a follow on / secondary) puts a limiter on how large a swarm attack can become.
For example:
15 defenders versus 30 escort and 30 attackers. 15 vs 60.
Now with 15 of the attackers having a different target as their primary you probably would end up with this:
15 defenders versus 23 escort and 15 attackers. 15 vs 38
The other 15 attackers would most likely either be holding away from the battle so that they don't run the risk of battle damage or losses or skirting around the battle toward the next target. Most CiCs would hold back some escorts for this force just in case other defenders vector in after dealing with battles in their areas or some other unexpected event where their bombers run into fighters.
Also realize that in most cases the escort to bomber ratio is not 1 to 1 50/50 but usually 60/40 or 70/30. So in that case the number 27 escorts and 12 attackers on target 1, while 9 escorts and 12 escorts proceed to target 2 with maybe the surviving escorts from the battle at target 1 instructed to link back up with them before hitting target 2.
So I believe the flexibility is still there.
-
Final word is that all this clarification / rules says is:
Force A attack target A.
Force B attack target B.
It does not really addressing routing. The examples show that you can bundle your planes together to waypoint X. Heck you could bundle them together to the target A and just say bomber force B and escort B push on past and hit target 2. Of course routing them right through a battle runs the risk of losing some of your bombers and disrupting the cohesion of the group to hit base 2, which is why I tend to like skirt around the battle and send escorts in first to pin down an enemy defenders to a certain location so that I can then try to route people past them to where ever they are going.
What we don't want have to have the CiCs do is to say:
Escort A, Escort B, Bomber A, Bomber B attack target 1. However, only have 10 bombers (formations) drop on target 1. No more than 10 bombers period. The other 10 bombers are only allowed to drop on target 2.
Even then we could have an issue since lets say instead of 20 bombers you lose 9. You now have 11 and 10 drop on target 1 leaving 1 bomber to drop on target 2 because they all entered the battle space together.
So a CiC might then would have to write:
Escort A, Escort B, Bomber A, Bomber B attack target 1. Bombers only drop half of your available ordinance of the surviving bombers on target 1. Then proceed to target 2 and drop the other half of your available ordinance of the surviving bombers from the battle at target 1 on target 2.
-
Ghostdancer, thank you for the time not only in explaining all of this, but for what is probably countless hours in the design and implemtation of each event. Although you may not think it, I and many others do appreciate it. :salute
This is perhaps your most persuasive point:
In my opinion this is what concerns me more than the concentration of forces. A follow on attack does not guarantee an attack on a the second target no matter what a CiC instructs to his troops. It also muddies the picture to an extent that for the second target all you can go by is whether the target 2 took damage or not? Then of course you are stuck with the question how much damage? Is it a credible attack if the bundled attack force spend all their ordinance at target 1 except for maybe 10%? Is it a valid attack on target 2 if only 1 bomber or 1 formation holds back bombs from hitting target 1 to attack target 2? How do CMs know how much ordinance is reserved for each target? Realistically we can only tell by bomb hits so lets say the attack force kept back 30% of their bomb load to hit target 2 but completely missed (remember in BoB frame 1 the LW bomb effectiveness was like 30% overall .. so it can happen). So if they miss how does the CM know if they just missed or if say instead they ran out of bombs at frame 1 or only let loose maybe 1 bombers worth of bombs?
On a non follow through attack I can tell from a CiCs orders what was assigned and intended. Force A with an escort squad of Y and a bomber squad Z was tasked to hit target 1. If they miss I still know they were carrying xxxx amount of ordinance soley intended for target 1. If they got intercepted I can go they were intercepted and destroyed while trying to get to target. Follow on attacks muddy the picture to much for me to make anything but Draconian calls on target 2.
Too often we forget that after the event ends, the second phase of your work just begins. I now understand the problems you have (or may) face in such a situation.
I still disagree as I feel a well planned and executed follow on attack should remain a viable option, but I see your point.
In the past year, three new rules have been added for the FSO's. A significant acceleration from years past. In my preparation of Frame 2 I spent what I thought was an inordinate amount of time checking and double checking that all the rules were followed. Even after that, I felt is was necessary to submit my warning orders to the FSO legal department for approval. This is becoming all to complicated, I can understand the confusion that the CiC in your example above faced.
-
I agree that to much time is spent on rules and such. Heck, just look at the objectives I send out and all the text in them trying to cover and explain everything. I wish we didn't have to do that and that somehow we can simplify things to some level that everybody understands and gets it.
I really dislike the fact that when I say attack a target that I have to define a "credible force." Basically I dislike the fact that we have to define things more and more and spell out parameters and so on.
You sent your orders for review and got the thumbs up. A pain to do and time consuming for you and the CM but basically gets a sign off by the CM saying everything is okay by me. That over rides everything else since if a CM okays it .. well he okay it and it is his issue if that contradicts something else.
In frame 3 the Axis CiC assigned 4 squads to hit 3 targets within 25 miles of each other that were not targets. He didn't send his objectives for review. So only after the fact when I went through the logs did I go .. why the heck were these bases attacked in this type of force? Then after talking to people involved I saw it was not a mistake. It wasn't a violation of rules to hit three bases that were nothing but it was a waste of 4 squads. A review not only looks for violations but also for things like this .. a misunderstanding or even a chance for a CM to give some advice
- e.g. I don't think a nap of the earth attack by B5Ns with no escorts is really a good idea, are you sure want to do this? (this is a fake example)
So thank you for your comments and understanding why we did this. I am with you though that I wish we could find another way and I think all of the CM team is like that; The less rules the better. Personally I enjoy seeing how CiCs come up with solutions to problems I give them, especially if I never thought of that strategy / solution.
The problem is the increasing administrative load on both CiCs and Admins for running an event that has 500 people in it. Being a CiC is no small task since creating good orders requires a lot of research and testing. Figuring out time to distance, doing some off line recon of target sites, figuring out what alt planes can get to and how that impacts time to target, etc.
So CiCs and Admins are in the same boat of having a lot of work to do and unfortunately both have to deal with the fact that past incidents have result in defining parameters more strictly for things.
-
After discussing things with my fellow CMs I need to make a clarification here that there are two valid components to this.
The first component regards the situation at the first target and the dog piling affect. The fact that the attacker has now doubled his available pilots to hit one target while a defender has more limited options to deal with this. Basically Daddog's example of 80 versus 15 at the first target instead of say 40 versus 15 (remember the attack force is not all escorts of bombers but a mix). Quite a few CMs place this as their primary concern and the game play affects and enjoyment of participants at the first target.
I personally fall into the camp which is more concerned with the situation at the second target (as explained above) and if an attack results or does not on the second target.
So while their is a difference of opinion on whether the situation at the first target or second target is more of a concern or the primary concern from a game play perspective the net results is actually the same. Plus, both components are valid issues and intertwined.
So view it as a more an issue of whether a stop sign is colored brick red or firehouse red. Not an issue of whether a stop sign is needed at all.
Just wanted to clarify that and state that my concern of emphasis on the situation at the second target is my personal stance on the issue.
-
The first component regards the situation at the first target and the dog piling affect. The fact that the attacker has now doubled his available pilots to hit one target while a defender has more limited options to deal with this. Basically Daddog's example of 80 versus 15 at the first target instead of say 40 versus 15 (remember the attack force is not all escorts of bombers but a mix). Quite a few CMs place this as their primary concern and the game play affects and enjoyment of participants at the first target.
Now this I still have a problem with. Up to this point all rules were to ensure that all squads saw sufficient action in a reasonable amount of time. Now we are concerned with dogpiling? :headscratch: What will the CM's rule next when an overwhelming force is sent against a single target? Start dictating the maximum amount of aircraft a CiC can send against any target? If so, refer to my original post.
-
After some private discussions I think I need to clarify a statement I made more.
It does not really addressing routing. The examples show that you can bundle your planes together to waypoint X. Heck you could bundle them together to the target A and just say bomber force B and escort B push on past and hit target 2. Of course routing them right through a battle runs the risk of losing some of your bombers and disrupting the cohesion of the group to hit base 2, which is why I tend to like skirt around the battle and send escorts in first to pin down an enemy defenders to a certain location so that I can then try to route people past them to where ever they are going.
What do I mean by push past here? When I say push past basically it that you encounter an enemy and instead of engaging push past them. You can do this several ways.
First way to avoid the enemy altogether and set a way point at a safe distance from target 1 and have your force B break off there. Usually it is best to be about 25 miles or more out from target 1 for this type of routing or tactic. At 50 miles out you probably won't run into the enemy yet or it you do it is just pickets. So you don't yet have to fear an out and out attack on your bombers. At 25 miles out you most likely will encounter the enemy in force. This is because if the defender engages you at any closer range they really don't have a chance of stopping your attack force. Especially if you are in JABOs .. you let JABOs get within 12 miles uncontested and with alt you won't be able to stop them from diving on your base and dropping ordinance. Well unless they are slow JABOs .. say B5Ns.
Instead of setting a way point you can push past, breaking your force in two when contact with the defenders in force occurs. However, if you go this route you need to setup your forces correctly.
Basically you need to have escort A run a forward screen far enough ahead of your bombers that they can't see visually see them and be out another say 3 minutes or so from there. Then you have escort B provide close escort to bomber A and bomber B. Once escort A encounters the defenders they report it and do their best to engage the defenders and pin them in place so they can't see the bombers.
Bomber force A, Bomber force B, and Escort B then wheels in the direction toward the second target. In effect they try to skirt around the battle area unseen of flank it. Then at a reasonable moment bomber force A breaks back toward target 1 and starts their run. Meanwhile bomber force B and escort B push past and on toward target 2. They also end up providing a rear screen to the bombers then running toward target 1. Since defenders coming toward the tail side of bomber force 1 will encounter force B heading in another direction.
Actually running force B over the actual target 1 runs quite a few risks that impact whether they will even get to target 2 or not. Basically it subjects them to attack, can disrupt their cohesion, expend their ammo, use up WEP, etc. Resulting in them being beat up, not well organized, possibly at an alt disadvantage when they encounter the defenders at target 2.
Also it gives your opponent information on you. Defenders will broadcast the your numbers, make up, and direction to others. So if you route a second force actually over base the defenders will go .. hey target 1 is being hit. But X many bombers flew past toward the NW without dropping bombs. Which an astute CiC will go .. aha .. they are on their way somewhere else. What base could they being going after? Hmm, this base is 50 miles away I will tell my defenders to move to point X and get ready to jump them.
Now if the defenders don't see you then they can't report you and vector in other people or prepare positions.
Now lets say you don't bundle two forces together and have them split off at way point X or at first significant enemy contact. Say you only have one force. Many CiCs like to go with say a ratio of 1 escort pilot per 2 bomber pilots. Figuring that the bombers will suffer casualties but their numbers guarantee some will get through. Personally I am not a proponent of this strategy.
Lets say you have a force of 21 pilots. This strategy calls for 7 escort pilots and 14 bomber pilots. If formations are in use lets say 9 and 12 since 12 bomber pilots is 36 buffs. Here you are saying that 9 escort pilots and the the number of bombers you have should guarantee you get some ordinance to target.
The problem I have with this strategy is that to be effective the escorts have to fly close escort. So again when the defenders find you they find you and the buffs and can pick when they attack your buffs. Also your buffs are under attack which can severely disrupt their runs. They might not die but since they are under attack their bomb drops might be off resulting in a poor bomb damage rate.
If you go the other way 14 escorts and 7 bomber pilots you now have other options. You can break your escorts into two groups. 7 for close escort and 7 for a forward screen. If no formations in that FSO design then you have 1 to 1 close escort protection on the buffs. While you have 7 forward guys trying to disrupt the enemy before they see your buffs and organize for slashing attacks. Seven fighters can completely destroy the cohesion of the defenders if they forget their job is to find and kill buffs.
If formations are on then you have 7 forward / screen escorts, 7 close escorts and 21 bombers.
With or without formations you have an effective forward screen that is to engage enemy forces before they see the buffs. As soon as contact is made the buffs then can wheel with their close escorts avoid the battle and push past it to target (skirting around it) so they can try to get unmolested runs on the base which should approve their bomb damage rate and also expose them to less concentrated attacks. The close escorts are around just in case some defenders come across them now that weren't engage in the forward screen. You could also change your forward to close escort ration. Say 9 forward and 5 close escort now.
Most FSO are designed to reflect that anything with bombers realistically has two main goals. Keep the bombers alive so that they can get bombs on target. A dead buff not only costs you the point for that buff but also robs you of the potential for scoring points with ordinance.
-
I have updated the FSO rules. I have added the following under .6 Responsibilities/Squad Operations Frame CiC.
- CICs shall not organize a mission with orders to attack more than one objective in succession. More simply stated, one objective, one mission. If there are 8 offensive objectives for one side during a frame, the CIC shall ensure that there are eight attack missions, each assigned to attack a single objective. This rule is intended to prevent CICs from overwhelming the defenders of a single target. For example, a large combined force of 60 aircraft attacking three bases that are each singly defended by a squad of 15 or 20. Please see the following examples.
http://ahevents.org/fso-related/cic-example-orders.html
- If in any doubt that your orders are within the rules of FSO contact the Admin CM.
- After initial attacks are made in compliance with the T+60 rule follow up attacks are allowed and maybe conducted by the CIC.
I have also made a note in 'Tuks' example orders that it is no longer a valid tactic.
I don't expect everyone to like this, but in the long run I believe it will add to the enjoyment of FSO to many squads.
I also want to be clear that in no way am I criticizing anyone who has used this tactic. I have myself in the past.
-
- CICs shall not organize a mission with orders to attack more than one objective in succession. More simply stated, one objective, one mission. If there are 8 offensive objectives for one side during a frame, the CIC shall ensure that there are eight attack missions, each assigned to attack a single objective.
b]
:rolleyes: You might as well just turn the dar on. What I felt that FSO provided at one time was the anticipation of the unexpected. While attacking or defending a target you would have to plan for contingencies whether at the CiC or squad level. Now every frame, every mission will be just like the last. Forget that the fact that the average engagement for the two hour period of FSO is 10 minutes or less. If somebody is looking for constant action, then they should've stayed in the MA
This rule is intended to prevent CICs from overwhelming the defenders of a single target.
So what is the definition of overwhelming force. 1.5 v 1, 2 v 1, 3 v 1? Remember, we're talking a single target and the intent of the rule. I suspect It's another ridiculous ruling that will eventually come. Also will it work in reverse? What happens if only 7 attack 14 or 21 defenders. What will the ruling be then? Will other rules come out limiting the maximum squad for defense as well as offense? I forsee the "intent" of this rule only leading to more whines and additional problems for the FSO Legal Team.
-
:headscratch: Tuk said there were some new cic rules to look over and as i started reading this I was at first really concerned :eek: Tuk and I spent a bit of time on the high blue orders to make sure it was within the rules ie;escort/jabos. I think the 1 objective/1 mission will make it a bit simpler, thoo I see some issues that might make the light of day. But it's good to see a evolution of the rules,and a attitude of progress, I was also thinking that cic should sumit the orders to the cm staff for review and blessing. IMHO :aok We are looking forward to being back in the FSO action :salute
-
Now every frame, every mission will be just like the last.
Not at all.
You don’t know the exact:
Time of the attack
Altitude of the attackers.
Direction of the attack.
Plane type attacking.
Number of attackers.
Plenty of unknowns.
I am looking at the number of squads assigned to a target, not the number of players attacking a target. If a CiC assigns a small single squad (4-6) to defend a particular target and the opposing CiC assigns a 20+ squad to attack it, such is life.
-
Not at all. You don’t know the exact:
Time of the attack
The attack must be made by T+60. Distance to target and type of aircraft can narrow this window down to within 10 minutes.
Altitude of the attackers.
An altitude cap has been in place for the last few FSOs. So first of all you will know the altitude of the attack will be below that. Again distance to target, the T+60 rule, and type of attacking aircraft will allow you to approximate the altitude. Besides most defenders will climb to maximum altitude. If a Squad CO decides to use scouts they can determine altitude of the attack.
Direction of the attack.
True in about 50% of the FSO's. The other half, especially on large maps, distance to target and the T+60 rule will limit the option of the attackers, giving the defenders a good indication of the direction of the attack. In addition, the location of active enemy fields in the write up will give a very good indication of the direction of the attack, given time and distance.
Plane type attacking.
Again the write up for the FSO spells out the aircraft to be used. The T+60 bombs on target rule, defines that a portion of the attack, if not the entire force will be committed to air to ground operations. The only variable here is whether it will be JABO or high level bombers. Again depending upon the target and the map, a good Squad CO can make a highly educated guess of what that attack will consist of.
Number of attackers.
Given the number of targets that must be defended and/or attacked, a very simple arithmetic average will give you a good approximation of the attacking force.
Plenty of unknowns.
As you can see from my responses above, IMHO not so.
I am looking at the number of squads assigned to a target, not the number of players attacking a target. If a CiC assigns a small single squad (4-6) to defend a particular target and the opposing CiC assigns a 20+ squad to attack it, such is life.
There is the squad size attack/defend rule, which states that a minimum of 7-10 aircraft must either attack or defend, but I agree with your final statement.
Since the announcement of the new rule, I have devised at least 3 ways to follow the letter of the rule, but not its intent. My biggest concern is whether the CM's will judge any action on what is written, .....or why it was written. I fear the latter, for all it will do will be to produce more restrictive rules.
-
As Bomber Lead many times I understand the the intent of the T+ 60 intent.
However it really limits the direction and altitude bombers can approach their targets.
Defending fighters can guess where and when the attack will come from and the time.
So to me personally this within itself takes the guessing away from the defenders.
I would say abolish the T+ 60 rule and be more able to plan routes more accordingly to fuel burn. If we can come in undected and drop eggs on our return trip home we dont have to do a 180 degree turn for RTB to face the onslaught of fighters. We all want to survive and feel good about being able to have our choice. I know this wont happen but its my 2 cents.
-
Many of your arguments go beyond your displeasure with the new rule, but are critical of the way we have been designing FSO for years. :headscratch: If all of what you say is true then you should be able to design CiC orders that will completely predict what the other CiC will do and you would win every single time with few losses on your side. That has not been the case with anyone.
The attack must be made by T+60. Distance to target and type of aircraft can narrow this window down to within 10 minutes.
The distance to target could also make it a 40 or 50 minute window. That rule has been around for years. ;)
An altitude cap has been in place for the last few FSOs. So first of all you will know the altitude of the attack will be below that.
Alt caps well above 20k. They could come in NOE. We have air starts in some of our maps so the T+60 might not make a difference in some designs.
Again distance to target, the T+60 rule, and type of attacking aircraft will allow you to approximate the altitude. Besides most defenders will climb to maximum altitude. If a Squad CO decides to use scouts they can determine altitude of the attack.
Type of aircraft you can approximate the alt? :huh Baloney. We have many aircraft that could come in at 20k or 1k. Yes most defenders will climb to max alt. Who would not? :angel: You can drop from 20k to the deck a lot faster than you can climb from 1k to 20k. Scouts? Sure most of us use scouts. Some times they are spotted some times they are not.
True in about 50% of the FSO's. The other half, especially on large maps, distance to target and the T+60 rule will limit the option of the attackers, giving the defenders a good indication of the direction of the attack. In addition, the location of active enemy fields in the write up will give a very good indication of the direction of the attack, given time and distance.
Yup. Some times due to radar or distance it is easer to guess where the attack will come from. Just depends on the design.
Again the write up for the FSO spells out the aircraft to be used. The T+60 bombs on target rule, defines that a portion of the attack, if not the entire force will be committed to air to ground operations. The only variable here is whether it will be JABO or high level bombers. Again depending upon the target and the map, a good Squad CO can make a highly educated guess of what that attack will consist of.
Of course FSO spells out what AC are to be used. :huh That has not changed. You want the late war MA? Attacks not just NOE or high alt. Some FSO's have had fighter sweeps.
Given the number of targets that must be defended and/or attacked, a very simple arithmetic average will give you a good approximation of the attacking force.
Again that has not changed, has always been that way, but squads range from 4-6 to nearly 30. Can’t always tell how many will arrive, only now we will not allow a side so mass 120 players to steam roll three or four targets.
As you can see from my responses above, IMHO not so.
I guess we just have to disagree. My job apart from managing the FSO team is to make FSO a balanced and fun event for all involved. Not everyone will agree with what I decide to do, but IMHO it will in the long run improve the game play for squads. As players push the envelope in designs it is only natural that the CM's adjust as necessary to continue giving the events community reasonably balanced game play.
-
I think the Weatherman has expressed my view better than any words I could use. I will be delegating future responsibilities in planning in future. The space that was there now seems entirely empty.
-
The FSO Rules in question are concerning the mininum strike and defensive requirements coupled with the cap on time allowed with the restictions on altitude in FSO Frame Special Rules.
Squad Operations Frame CiC:
- Read and understand all the rules as they pertain to the current event.
- Receive and review the frame objectives as sent by Admin CM and follow the steps for the Frame CiC.'s.
- Insure that squadron C.O.’s have received their orders by e-mail, no later than Wednesday night prior to the Friday night Squad Operations.
- It is the responsibility of the Frame C.O. to insure orders were received by the squad C.O.’s.
- Frame CiC's must assign squads to hit all targets within the first hour of the frame.
- Frame CiC.’s must assign squads to defend all targets during the first hour.
- CICs shall not organize a mission with orders to attack more than one objective in succession. More simply stated, one objective, one mission. If there are 8 offensive objectives for one side during a frame, the CIC shall ensure that there are eight attack missions, each assigned to attack a single objective. This rule is intended to prevent CICs from overwhelming the defenders of a single target. For example, a large combined force of 60 aircraft attacking three bases that are each singly defended by a squad of 15 or 20. Please see the following examples.
http://ahevents.org/fso-related/cic-example-orders.html
- If in any doubt that your orders are within the rules of FSO contact the Admin CM.
- After initial attacks are made in compliance with the T+60 rule follow up attacks are allowed and maybe conducted by the CIC.
- The "aircraft of interest" for each squadron should be taken into consideration when aircraft are assigned.
- All squads may split, but only into 2 different AC. squads must have the same objective. Squads may not be split into 2 different groups to attack 2 different targets. They may fly a bomber with escort role, or 2 different fighters in the same squad to escort another squads bombers. etc. Unnecessary splitting is to be avoided.
*In real life you never plan for a fair fight, but this is a game and as CM’s we are here to give the events community fun and balanced play, with a dash of history and a touch of reality.
The issue I have been keeping track of is what has been influencing the other issues at the same time. These rules that have caused this issue to spring forwars was not done intentionally. The rules were created with the intent of "allowing everone the oppurtunity to see action". The main issue has been the T+60 rule.
This rule has been created for positive reasons, however the same rule has caused a detriment to the FSO experience unintentionally. The old theory vs. practicality predictament.
:rolleyes: You might as well just turn the dar on. What I felt that FSO provided at one time was the anticipation of the unexpected. While attacking or defending a target you would have to plan for contingencies whether at the CiC or squad level. Now every frame, every mission will be just like the last. Forget that the fact that the average engagement for the two hour period of FSO is 10 minutes or less. If somebody is looking for constant action, then they should've stayed in the MA
So what is the definition of overwhelming force. 1.5 v 1, 2 v 1, 3 v 1? Remember, we're talking a single target and the intent of the rule. I suspect It's another ridiculous ruling that will eventually come. Also will it work in reverse? What happens if only 7 attack 14 or 21 defenders. What will the ruling be then? Will other rules come out limiting the maximum squad for defense as well as offense? I forsee the "intent" of this rule only leading to more whines and additional problems for the FSO Legal Team.
My squadmate has summed this up in a nutshell quite simply. 500 players take off at one time. Each side, squad, and player knows one thing. Everything MUST happen by T+60 or the penalties start flying. Then, when someone happens to fly around for 2 hours without seeing the enemy or when someone is shot down after 20 minutes into the FSO, the word FOUL is cried somewhere along the lines and the hindsight 20/20 club springs into action.
This is a game. We do this for the recreation and fun. But, isn't this particular event supposed to be about re-creating the battles in the first place. Isn't this about maybe the history's winner might lose? The only way for this to happen is to allow the possibility for that to happen. That way is to take away the T+60 rule and the mininum strike and defenders rule. These rules are hampering the unexpectedness of the event.
I understand the reasons why they were put in place. A good theorical approach to a fluid situation. This is the reason why it's become detrimental.
I'm going to use the Battle of Brittain map for an example. Allied bombers have to hit 5 targets while the Axis bombers have to hit 4 targets. Each target is assigned a dedicated strike force and a defensive force. 9 strike forces are supposed to fly 9 different routes with a few flying together but seperating at pre-arranged coordinates. Bombers don't climb fast. They are slow. Rushing them to a target before T+60 without them getting into proper altitude of 22,000 ft and proper line ups on the targets, makes them one word. SKEET!!!
All this has done, has made the fighter jockeys able to POUNCE on the strike groups. Escorts have little chance to defend. Furballs erupt in favor of the defenders save isolated instances. This has resulted in squads detesting bomber assignments due to the "We're going on a suicide mission, why bother?"
There are no REAL surprise attacks anymore. With the T+60 rule, a surprise attack at 30 minutes? This rule has created a new norm for the FSO's. Each FSO is a one strike event and all is done. Bases being used and allowed for re-arm have such a distance between them that second strikes are basically non-existent save isolated incidents. Two years ago, second strikes with bombers allowed action for the entire two hours.
It was a question about being in the right place at the right time. Just like in real life.
FSO's are the greatest special events in the game outside the MA's with the squad. Lately, the FSO has become very close to the MA in respect to the one strike only part. In the MA's, squads launch out of a single airfield loaded for bear and hit one target. Level the target and either capture the field or RTB. The latter part where the similarity to the FSO comes in with RTB.
What I see now is players launch at the same time during FSO. Some players get shot down early and either ride backseat with their squaddies or go back to the MA's. Strike packages hit targets before T+60 (No surprise) and players shot down then either stay with swuaddies or head to MA's. Strike package survivors RTB. No second strike anymore so defender survivors land and tower out and head to MA's. Strike package survivors land at their airfields and tower out before heading to MA's.
Result: The event is usually done for 200-350 players before T+60. We might as well just stay in the MA's and do a multi-squad hit-n-run. Where is the difference?
CIC's should not have to be hampered with these rules. Every squad that signs up for this event is aware that on a few frames a year. Either they are jumped 20 minutes into the Frame and be sitting in the tower or flying around for 2 hours without seeing any RED GUYS.
This is the element of chance. The fortunes of war. etc.
There is no longer an element of true surprise or chance. FSO is like an assembly line with 500 players heading to the meatgrinder. How many squads will continue this route before deciding to quit?
This is my IMHO of what is happening and where it's going.
-
I received a PM from a player asking why some are getting so 'tweaked' (my words not his) about the change.
I replied that in a way it is a good thing. Shows they are passionate about FSO.
So much of what is posted is a straw man. Example.
Either they are jumped 20 minutes into the Frame and be sitting in the tower or flying around for 2 hours without seeing any RED GUYS.
If this was true we would not be having around 500 players attending every week. How do you get jumped 20 minutes into the frame unless your in a fat, fully loaded bomber heading directly for an enemy field three sectors away? That is just stupid and they deserve to be jumped and have their night over in 20 minutes. Oh, I guess they did not have any escort either.
How do you fly around for 2 hours without seeing any red guys? That ONLY happens when:
1. The CiC sent out FUBAR orders.
2. A squad ignores the T+60 rule (that some want me to remove and how does that make any sense?)
3. A squad is a no-show.
And none of the above are due to a flawed design in FSO.
By removing the T+60 rule and fighters circle a field for an hour and fifty minutes waiting for the attack to come. What fun is that? I guess some thinks it adds to the realism not knowing if they will circle the field for 20 minutes or 2 hours.
I will never take away the T+60 rule. Frankly it was and is one of the cornerstones to the success of FSO. Some of what you suggest hedges into the Scenario realm. FSO is not a Scenario, never will be.
-
Since the announcement of the new rule, I have devised at least 3 ways to follow the letter of the rule, but not its intent.
Do tell...
-
Do tell...
My biggest concern is whether the CM's will judge any action on what is written, .....or why it was written. I fear the latter, for all it will do will be to produce more restrictive rules.
You address my concerns, then I will address yours.
-
Many of your arguments go beyond your displeasure with the new rule, but are critical of the way we have been designing FSO for years. :headscratch:
Not true, my reply (#39) was simply a response to yours about unknowns in the event. I'll endorse that some of the rules were necessary for game play, i.e. all fields defended/attack and even grudgingly the original T+60 rule, as it was necessary to hold the players interest in the event. But remember at that time a fighter sweep was considered to fullfill the requirement. The other rules that were implemented in my opinion were just more restrictions added on, perhaps without the consideration of amending others.
I was even ready to accept this latest ruling based on Ghostdancer's reply about how follow on attacks could muddy the scoring. The Lord knows how hard you CM's work on preparing for and operating each event, and I would never stand in the way of a rule that would lighten your load. But then you announced the "intent" of this latest ruling, which as I can see being the basis for other even more restrictive rulings.
If all of what you say is true then you should be able to design CiC orders that will completely predict what the other CiC will do and you would win every single time with few losses on your side. That has not been the case with anyone.
The truth is that in my "FSO Career", I have CiC'd almost two dozen times and have won many more than I have lost. This is because I spend up to 30 hours of my free time along with some of my squad mates for each event calculating climb rates, distance and time to targets, fuel consumption for both sides and then formulating a strategy that is effective most times. No CiC can win every time, but I try to give my side every advantage based on my experience.
-
How do you fly around for 2 hours without seeing any red guys? That ONLY happens when:
1. The CiC sent out FUBAR orders.
2. A squad ignores the T+60 rule (that some want me to remove and how does that make any sense?)
3. A squad is a no-show.
You can also fly around for 2 hours without seeing any red guys when you're defending and the strike package assigned to your target was jumped and annihilated 20 minutes into the frame.
:D
-
The best information I can truly provide on why the T+60 rule has caused the problems with CIC planning is this.
Specific Rules:
Each B5N2 and B-17G that lands successfully at the end of the frame will receive a x5 pilot bonus.
The B-17G can only carry 100lbs bombs.
The B-17G must carry 100% fuel
These rules are stated on the homepage of the FSO in Special Events for all to see including Ais CIC's. My data will no way affect the outcome of strategies and tactics of each Frame.
In offline mode, I took up a B-17 with 100% fuel and 24X100 lb. bombs.
9:28 Takeoff 800 Climb Rate (CR) 137 True Air Speed (TAS)
9:32 3000 ft 800 CR 142 TAS
9:37 7000 ft 760 CR 150 TAS
9:41 10,000 ft 700 CR 157 TAS
9:46 13,000 ft 650 CR 165 TAS
9:49 15,000 ft 600 CR 171 TAS
9:54 18,000 ft 550 CR 178 TAS
9:58 20,000 ft 500 CR 185 TAS
10:02 22,000 ft 460 CR 192 TAS
In many other FSO's, other heavy bombers were used with different bomb loads and fuel loads. The climb rates are still very close to one another in a broad sense. It takes time to get the BUFFs into the air.
This was done in offline mode. Ideal situation without the fear of being attacked. One bomber by itself on a heading straight from runway takeoff.
In FSO, 15 players taking BUFFs up at one time. The bomber group staying in close formation. The group making course corrections to follow the path outlined from the CIC orders. Lead bombers having to slow down to allow rear bombers to catch up. The group getting to the assigned bomb altitude and speed for calibration. All of this while being concerned from enemy attack. That's combat.
That has to be done before T+60. Most bomber groups are being rushed to get this done by not being able to get to a higher altitude of 22,000 ft or more plus new ceiling rules.
CIC's choose the routes for the strike groups. They choose routes that take the strike groups away from the enemy to allow for climb time. This adds more time to being enroute to target. Forcing the groups to level off at 15-18,000 ft., making them the SKEET for defending fighters.
On the opposite side with ceiling restrictions, bombers at 24,000 ft with restrictions at 26,000 ft prevent defending fighters optimal attack dives onto the bombers. Even a bomber guy like me acknowledges the other hand.
More to follow on this subject.
-
The truth is that in my "FSO Career", I have CiC'd almost two dozen times and have won many more than I have lost. This is because I spend up to 30 hours of my free time along with some of my squad mates for each event calculating climb rates, distance and time to targets, fuel consumption for both sides and then formulating a strategy that is effective most times. No CiC can win every time, but I try to give my side every advantage based on my experience.
Of that I have little doubt, unlike my CiC score over the years where I have lost all but one or two times. :) Your time, efforts, investment in FSO is greatly appreciated, but I still feel (the way some have presented it) if all that was put forth is true, then a CiC should have a record of 100% with few losses to his side.
You can also fly around for 2 hours without seeing any red guys when you're defending and the strike package assigned to your target was jumped and annihilated 20 minutes into the frame.
Ya, I forgot that one. ;) I guess some times things will just not go our way. :)
Rgr, I will wait for the rest AKKuya.
-
There are no "new ceiling rules".
Every FSO has a small # of event specific rules (some dont), but any alt restriction is specific to that design *only*.
For info. I dont want to see rumours starting about standing FSO rules that dont exist.
I dont see any alt restrictions in the current setup.
-
Rgr, I will wait for the rest AKKuya.
I'm working on example CIC orders for a fictional FSO. These will illustrate what I'm talking about. They will be done around Sunday or Monday and posted in this thread.
There are no "new ceiling rules".
Every FSO has a small # of event specific rules (some dont), but any alt restriction is specific to that design *only*.
For info. I dont want to see rumours starting about standing FSO rules that dont exist.
I dont see any alt restrictions in the current setup.
It wasn't my intention to state them like that as FSO rules. Just the memory card in my head recalls the alt restricions becoming used fairly often now in the last year of the FSO's.
-
I'm working on example CIC orders for a fictional FSO. These will illustrate what I'm talking about. They will be done around Sunday or Monday and posted in this thread.
I would hate to see you spend a lot of time on something that would be 'fictional'. I really respect your efforts here AKKuya and I am not trying to be a jerk, (contrary to the belief of some) I know your really trying to make your point and sway my decision, but from the get go it will not hold much weight because your not basing it on an FSO we have run or using examples from recent FSO's.
Many of the problems we 'could' have would be due to a poor design by the CM's, not the rules. Just about anyone could create an FSO design that would have a laundry list of problems, but all due to a poor design. Sure someone could point to the rules being the issue here, but the rules are also eliminating a host of other problems.
-
9:28 Takeoff 800 Climb Rate (CR) 137 True Air Speed (TAS)
9:32 3000 ft 800 CR 142 TAS
9:37 7000 ft 760 CR 150 TAS
9:41 10,000 ft 700 CR 157 TAS
9:46 13,000 ft 650 CR 165 TAS
9:49 15,000 ft 600 CR 171 TAS
9:54 18,000 ft 550 CR 178 TAS
9:58 20,000 ft 500 CR 185 TAS
10:02 22,000 ft 460 CR 192 TAS
Maybe, just maybe, the Admin didn't want the B-17s to climb to 22,000 feet... Climb to 12-15,000', level off and you have 40 minutes to cruise to target. Even at 220 TAS (which is plenty slow to keep the formation together) you'll have a 120 mile + range (almost 5 sectors) to target before T+60.
-
Maybe, just maybe, the Admin didn't want the B-17s to climb to 22,000 feet... Climb to 12-15,000', level off and you have 40 minutes to cruise to target. Even at 220 TAS (which is plenty slow to keep the formation together) you'll have a 120 mile + range (almost 5 sectors) to target before T+60.
+1
Hitting the target by T+60 is not a problem if you don't insist on climbing into low Earth orbit.
-
I thought there was a little flexiblity on the +60 issue. :uhoh with cloud cover sometimes high alt bombers need to make a 2nd pass to get vis on target. lets say for example 1 st pass @ +55 @ 18k on vis no ord dropped, 2 pass +65 @ 12 k vis and ord dropped. would there be a penatly or not ?
-
First pass @ +55 minutes? They are on time in my book. I really doubt any Admin CM would penalize if they could not drop due to clouds.
-
that what we thought ty :salute
-
I would hate to see you spend a lot of time on something that would be 'fictional'. I really respect your efforts here AKKuya and I am not trying to be a jerk, (contrary to the belief of some) I know your really trying to make your point and sway my decision, but from the get go it will not hold much weight because your not basing it on an FSO we have run or using examples from recent FSO's.
Many of the problems we 'could' have would be due to a poor design by the CM's, not the rules. Just about anyone could create an FSO design that would have a laundry list of problems, but all due to a poor design. Sure someone could point to the rules being the issue here, but the rules are also eliminating a host of other problems.
That's true on the fictional FSO. I'll scrap that.
The FSO design by the CM's, I now understand the unintentional flaws from my early work on my fictional FSO. The saying, until you do it yourself you'll never understand. I know they spend alot of time designing them and respect their time and dedication to the work. :salute
Maybe, just maybe, the Admin didn't want the B-17s to climb to 22,000 feet... Climb to 12-15,000', level off and you have 40 minutes to cruise to target. Even at 220 TAS (which is plenty slow to keep the formation together) you'll have a 120 mile + range (almost 5 sectors) to target before T+60.
This is a very clear point in my assesement the bomber part of the FSO is getting worse. Stoney suggested a reasoning for the Admin's line of thinking. The amount of distance to target with limited time available for climbing plus the directional course changes has resulted in the "rush for bombers to get to target before T+60".
Bombers at 15,000 to 18,000 ft are at a disadvantage from enemy fighters. Enemy CAP is patrolling at 22,000 ft and calls start with location and altitude of bombers. Enemy fighters have the alt advantage which is proper for initial engagement. Fighters dive toward bombers and unleash first wave of fire in hopes of destroying or massively damaging them. That's all right.
The disadvantage part is the faster recovery time for the fighters to reascend back to 20,000 due to thicker air and faster climb rates for secons passes. When the bombers at 22,000 feet get first attack, the enemy CAP takes a little longer for altitude recovery and the fighter engines work a little harder to maintain fights at that altitude.
That would imply that FSO designs are now being catered for easy picking on bombers forced to fly at lower altitudes. This has been most likely an oversight from spacing targets from each other to give clear area of operations for attackers and defenders at a target.
I have noticed in the new updated CIC rules that the mininum numbers for attackers and defenders have been removed. And, at the bottom a special note that in real life you don't plan on being fair but in the community we plan to making sure everone has something to do. Not word for word but the general gist of it.
Does this mean that attacks before T+60 now can be comprised of small numbers and set up for main attack after T+60?
Would this allow future CIC's to say send a small JABO run to a target around T+30 to satisfy the T+60 rule enabling the bombers to spend the 45 minutes climbing to 22,000 ft for proper navigation and line up on targets after T+60?
If this is the new way, then my concerns would be over. Bombers would get their proper place in aerial warfare. Everbody would have a part in it because the bombers coming in at T+75 or so would constitute Part 2 of the FSO.
When a bomber group takes off with 12-15 players, it takes time to climb. More time on allowing stragglers to catch up from the initial climb and making the directional changes. Lastly, setting the speed to lower RPM's and Manifold for better Time Over Target increases Time To Target.
To use an analogy from the world of sports, fighters are like basketball players. They dash back and forth in a quick hustle for control of the board. Bombers are like bass fisherman who enjoy the slow crawl of time until the moment of action.
I just want the CM's to know that I'm not critical of the rules being fair for balanced play. Just for the way the bombers are being pushed into basketball hustle for the sake of being on time. All 500 players deserve a chance to participate.
With the new survival bonus points being implemented, players who on an occasion spend 2 hours flying around with no opposition due to circumstances (either attackers stopped cold before target or being in the wrong places at the wrong times) can still help by landing successfully for their side. It's a small consolation for one night.
Sometimes it takes awhile to get a point across for all to understand. :D
-
This is a very clear point in my assessment the bomber part of the FSO is getting worse...Stoney suggested a reasoning for the Admin's line of thinking...Bombers at 15,000 to 18,000 ft are at a disadvantage from enemy fighters...
Hmm...B-17s versus A6M2 or A6M5 even. Explain how B-17s are at a disadvantage against those two fighters at any altitude? This isn't an 8th Air Force setup. Without speaking for Baumer, if its my setup, and we're in Europe, I wouldn't expect B-17s to be at 12,000 feet. In the PTO, even during the war, US and IJA/IJN pilots rarely flew with oxygen. With some exceptions, the entire air war in the Pacific took place below 15,000 feet. The early B-29 raids were about the only regular exception. If I'm creating a PTO event, I'll definitely use the design tools available to me to keep the fight at close to realistic altitudes. If the community doesn't want that, and they want to see Hellcats and Zekes at 25-30,000 feet, then so be it. Get some consensus from the FSO community, and I'll set up an event that will have you at whatever altitude you want.
That would imply that FSO designs are now being catered for easy picking on bombers forced to fly at lower altitudes...
Dead wrong. Every special, event-specific rule we use has a purpose for the event. Sometimes they don't exactly turn out the way we think they will, but there is an intent behind every one of them. If you see a rule you don't understand, then please ask. All of us are more than happy to explain our decisions to the community. You may not agree with them all the time, but don't think that we're throwing darts. I've used higher fuel burns before, and have seen players react with "you didn't give us enough fuel to fly the mission!", but in reality, I didn't give them enough fuel to fly around on full throttle for 2 hours. I've seen players say "you didn't give us enough time to hit the target by T+60", but in reality, I didn't give them enough time to climb to 28,000 feet and take a 350 mile circuitous route that approached the target from out of the sun.
This has been most likely an oversight from spacing targets from each other to give clear area of operations for attackers and defenders at a target.
Please, if something seems weird to you, ask us about it. We love this event, and we want to make it as dynamic and immersive as possible. To do so, we use different tools, rules, configurations, side balance, scoring systems, etc. Every thing we do is deliberate and thought out. It doesn't always work, but each setup gives us an opportunity to explore new ways to make the event better. We post our setups early so the community can discuss them and ask questions. We actively pursue input from the players to find ways to achieve things the players want. You have an idea on a setup? Let us know. Want to see a specific battle or match up? Let us know.
-
Just a quick reply, more later. :)
The saying, until you do it yourself you'll never understand.
I don't think I have ever said that yet to a small degree I would agree with it, but at the same time over the years I have had some of the best ideas for events from players. Just don't want you thinking the above statement is where I am coming from. :) I read every post and PM by players and really make an effort to 'hear' what they are saying. :)
-
This is so right on by Stoney I had to repeat it.
I've used higher fuel burns before, and have seen players react with "you didn't give us enough fuel to fly the mission!", but in reality, I didn't give them enough fuel to fly around on full throttle for 2 hours. I've seen players say "you didn't give us enough time to hit the target by T+60", but in reality, I didn't give them enough time to climb to 28,000 feet and take a 350 mile circuitous route that approached the target from out of the sun.
This is also worth repeating. :)
Every special, event-specific rule we use has a purpose for the event. Sometimes they don't exactly turn out the way we think they will, but there is an intent behind every one of them. If you see a rule you don't understand, then please ask. All of us are more than happy to explain our decisions to the community. You may not agree with them all the time, but don't think that we're throwing darts.
-
This is a post in the AK forums by AKWxman and used with his permission. A newer member of the squad had asked what the deal was with the FSO debate.
I’ll give a little history about FSO from my perspective.
I started flying Tour of Duty (pre FSO) like many of us during my 2 week trial before joining the AK’s back in July 2003. I thought was a wonderful venue that allowed players (generally the Squadron CO) to design strategy for a semi realistic battle. At the time my only worry was to follow orders, stay with the group, stay alive and get a kill. Much like it is for many of you now. As long as fair play was followed it was quite simple then with few rules, the biggest being observing the one life per frame.
After a little more than a year, our Squadron CO at that time (AKCurly) asked me to take over FSO duties, i.e. command the Arabian Knights for this venue. My responsibility increased to making sure that everyone in the squadron knew what plane to fly, what our mission was, where to launch and to make sure everyone knew what few rules were involved.
My duties also included to prepare and distribute the orders for whatever side we were on when it was the AK’s turn to be Commander in Charge (CiC) of the frame. I was told back then the purpose of these orders was to give some cohesion and order so that various target could be defended and/or attack, with the primary purpose of winning the frame. I was also told this was why each frame was scored. As a CiC then, you could devise any legitimate battle strategy to employ; feints, fighter sweeps, escorted bomber attacks, hit and run, etc., all in the hope that by the end of the frame your side scored more points than the other. While the strategy could get complicated, it was unencumbered by a lot of rules. It was simply one side battling the other.
As FSO grew it began to change. Players began to complain about certain aspects of the strategy being employed.
The first rule adopted was that all targets were to be attacked. Some CiC’s used a concentration of force on higher valued targets leaving lower value targets untouched. Those defending the untouched targets complained about no enemy contact for the 2 hour period, a valid concern.
The second rule adopted was that all targets were to be defended. Again some CiC’s left some lower valued targets undefended while providing more protection to higher value targets. Those attacking the undefended targets complained about milk runs and not being able to engage in a fight. From a game play advantage perhaps a valid concern, but not in deciding overall strategy and allocation of resources in my opinion.
The third rule adopted was the T+60 rule. It stated that all targets had to be attacked 60 minutes into the frame. This was a game play decision to hold the players interest in the event so that they could see some action early enough and not have to possibly wait until the end of the frame. In my opinion this had its merits, but effectively forced the CiC to employ some resources earlier than he was accustomed to. However at that time, a fighter sweep was deemed to fulfill the requirement of the rule.
The fourth rule adopted was the use of minimum/maximum set of aircraft. This was done after a Pacific frame that one CiC that used only N1K1’s for defense. A valid strategy but game play was said to be affected.
The fifth rule adopted was that bombs had to be dropped on target by T+60. It was another game play decision. It was said that this rule was adopted to prevent a small squad from strafing the target then running away. Effectively in my opinion it was to eliminate the fighter sweep near the T+60 mark and forcing the bomber and/or JABO’s to commit to action early so that the defenders would have a chance to prevent the destruction of the target. Again it was another limit on strategy that could be employed.
The sixth rule adopted was that a minimum of 11 to 15 aircraft defend or attack any target. Some CiC’s were satisfying rule 2 and 3 by assigning a small squad to defend or attack target, sometimes being overwhelmed. Again a game play consideration.
The latest and final rule of 1 target/1 mission is strictly a game play consideration to prevent an overwhelming force against any one target. This is to allow the defenders a chance to survive and perhaps get some kills. It has nothing to do with effective strategy to win.
This last rule I feel sums up the direction that FSO is taking. It is no longer about strategy or semi realistic recreation of battles. It is turning into making sure every one has a chance to get a kill. As I stated in the FSO thread, I feel it will make every mission in every frame the same as the one before. The template has been formed. It’s not the FSO I have been accustomed to the last several years. It will feel like an extension of the MA albeit at a slower pace.
Finally some may consider this a bit paranoid, but 5 of the 7 rule changes mentioned above have occurred immediately after I have CiC’d or wrote the orders for a frame. Therefore, while I may continue to participate is some diminished capacity. I will no longer CiC another frame or write the orders.
Wx
This post is very clear on the issues.
-
Finally some may consider this a bit paranoid, but 5 of the 7 rule changes mentioned above have occurred immediately after I have CiC’d or wrote the orders for a frame.
AH HAH! It's all YOUR fault! :bolt:
:D
-
This thread has had some some fantastic debates but has abruptly ended after Weathermans post in our threads which was reposted here. Saxman then replied that its his fault, :) . However what I see here is that WX has won, as no reply has been made, or others have just given up.
My point of view has not changed. T+ 60 minute rule for bombers at target is wrong.
-
This thread has had some some fantastic debates but has abruptly ended after Weathermans post in our threads which was reposted here. Saxman then replied that its his fault, :) . However what I see here is that WX has won, as no reply has been made, or others have just given up.
My point of view has not changed. T+ 60 minute rule for bombers at target is wrong.
In a discussion of this sort, it's not about "Winning" or "losing", it's about what makes something better for everyone.
Attendance low for the last frame has nothing to do with the T+60 rule, because it's been around for years and there have been plenty in attendance over that time period.
The CM's have worked tirelessly, thanklessly (for the most part), and without compensation other than the satisfaction of accomplishing something for the masses, and they do so to make their events better. Better for everyone involved.
Agree with a rule, disagree with a rule, that's everyone's right in a conversation....
The reasons behind the rules have been posted for all to see, but just stating that it's "Wrong" and that your side has won the argument because no one else replied doesn't really cut it.
If you disagree with a rule, you need to provide adequate justification to back your position.
-
This thread has had some some fantastic debates but has abruptly ended after Weathermans post in our threads which was reposted here. Saxman then replied that its his fault, :) . However what I see here is that WX has won, as no reply has been made, or others have just given up.
My point of view has not changed. T+ 60 minute rule for bombers at target is wrong.
Attendance low for the last frame has nothing to do with the T+60 rule, because it's been around for years and there have been plenty in attendance over that time period.
:headscratch: You quoted him verbatim. How do you attribute this remark to what AKBmzawy said. In fact no where within this thread is the T+60 rule and attendance remotely linked.
Agree with a rule, disagree with a rule, that's everyone's right in a conversation....
The reasons behind the rules have been posted for all to see, but just stating that it's "Wrong" and that your side has won the argument because no one else replied doesn't really cut it.
If you disagree with a rule, you need to provide adequate justification to back your position.
Perhaps you didn't bother to read his previous post:
As Bomber Lead many times I understand the the intent of the T+ 60 intent.
However it really limits the direction and altitude bombers can approach their targets.
Defending fighters can guess where and when the attack will come from and the time.
So to me personally this within itself takes the guessing away from the defenders.
I would say abolish the T+ 60 rule and be more able to plan routes more accordingly to fuel burn. If we can come in undected and drop eggs on our return trip home we dont have to do a 180 degree turn for RTB to face the onslaught of fighters. We all want to survive and feel good about being able to have our choice. I know this wont happen but its my 2 cents.
Perhaps before making assumptions, you should familiarize yourself with the subject.
-
OK, you win. Congrats. :devil
Look, I'm wasn't trying to pick a fight, I've read the arguments both ways, and understand the concerns either way.
The CM's have stated why they have the T+60 rule in place. Plain and simple they want to assure action in a timely manner.
Yes I understand this means that you can't climb out to the altitude you wish every time.
Yes I understand that you can't always take the circuitous route that avoids all detect, enemy contact, and makes gets you to target without incident.
It's also been stated that usually Bombers have a pretty high rate of return in FSO, barring the single dive bomber variety.
I understand all these concerns and felt that the participants in this conversation understood both sides of the argument weather they agreed with them or not.
I also assumed that before replying you'd read your squadmates post on another thread attributing low numbers in Frame 1 to the rules.
As it stands however, my statement wasn't one of attack at you, akbmzawy, or anyone else. My statement was more to the effect that this isn't a conversation you "Win", but try to come to amicable rules that make the event enjoyable for all.
-
LOL
What Chapel said. No winning or losing. Silly to look at it that way. As you can see from the number of my posts I freely debate/argue points, but generally not in public. Probably 80% of my posts over the years have been in the private event forums. As for not replying I have been busy with the December FSO design.
Also Wx made it quite clear that he was not going to CiC any more and I was in doubt as to the value of my time spend in a reply. I am sorry we lost you as a CiC. Nevertheless…
The fourth rule adopted was the use of minimum/maximum set of aircraft. This was done after a Pacific frame that one CiC that used only N1K1’s for defense. A valid strategy but game play was said to be affected.
Just to be clear this is not a rule.
http://ahevents.org/fso-related/fso-rules.html
Also recall another frame a few years back when one side had a couple IL2’s and the rest we all in LA5’s. And other frames…
Admin CM’s create their own minimums, maximums, or employ both in their designs. It is not a rule.
The sixth rule adopted was that a minimum of 11 to 15 aircraft defend or attack any target. Some CiC’s were satisfying rule 2 and 3 by assigning a small squad to defend or attack target, sometimes being overwhelmed. Again a game play consideration.
Again I believe you are mistaken. This is not a rule, unless the Admin CM puts it in.
I understand much of what you are saying and even agree with you on some points, but if sacrificing some CiC ingenuity means a more enjoyable evening for many FSO players then it is worth it to me. My focus is the enjoyment of the players, not that the CiC’s have all their imagination at their disposal to use as they see fit.
IMHO the rule changes over the years have improved the event from a player stand point. Yes I agree they have subtracted from the inventiveness a CiC might employ, but how many more have enjoyed an FSO evening because we had a rule that did not allow a CiC to:
1. Attack all target at 1 hour 50 minutes into the frame.
2. Send in a single fighter at T+59 minutes and then the rest of the squad at T+1 hour 50 minutes.
3. Everyone up in a fighter, the best one on the list.
4. Just attack ¼ of the targets with an overwhelming force and let the other defending squads circle their base for 2 hours without any action.
The list could go on….
Yes the rules hamstring the CiC’s in many respects, but they also help ensure players have an enjoyable evening in FSO.
-
DD, your last post was very informative. Thank you.
-
<S>
Thank you sir. Glad it helped.
-
Yes the rules hamstring the CiC’s in many respects, but they also help ensure players have an enjoyable evening in FSO.
+1
Last Friday was my first FSO ever without spotting an enemy aircraft, and I doubt it will happen again soon. After all, as a Kate pilot, I was happy to have a milk run. :)
-
That is good Gav, well... I mean that is good it was the first time. :) How long in FSO?