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.
