FSO Rule adjustments

[Sled]

Have made adjustments to the squad spliting, and T+60 rules.

Here

[RSLQK186]

Noticed that some other items from the last changes(I think) are still high lighted yellow and the latest are not. Changes are not hard to find, just takes more than a quick glance.

I see no mention of 50/50 squad split. Is that as intended?
If so, the CiCs still need to be carefull when Max/Min rules apply to dictate rather than suggest what squads fly.

Like the Ord mandate- glad to see it.

[Sled]

Originally posted by RSLQK186
I see no mention of 50/50 squad split. Is that as intended?

Yes, We did this so squads can up 2 x ME-262's for scouting, and the rest of the squad could be in G-6's, or whatever.

The most important thing, we want squads to fly together in the same objective. NO splitting squads into 2 different objectives.

[Kurt]

I think the meat of the change was the T+60 rules...

I want to thank the Cm team for the work on that.  I think the new rules will avoid a lot of stupid crud in the future.

Good work.

[FTJR]

- All targets must be attacked within 60 minutes of the start of the frame. They must be attacked with explosive ordinance, (rockets and bombs) by a full squadron.

My understanding of a "full squadron" is 12 planes. Is that correct?

TKs

[Squire]

Agree, no more "CAPing" an objective with 4 planes, or "attacking" same with 4 planes.  

A "squadron" imho should be defined as 12 a/c bare minimum commitment.

[WxMan]

Why the change in the T+60 rule, especially in regard to ordnance?

[Husker]

The rule seems sound, however there will need to be some leeway in how it's enforced. If a stirke of 15 planes goes after a target and effective screens take out all but 3 aircraft they are going to have to press their attack shorthanded, and IMHO they will have satisfied the "spirit" of the rule. A CiC can't be expected to divert planes from other objectives/CAP stations to fulfill this "squadron sized" rule.

[WOLF359]

I agree, the wording should be changed to "attempt to attack target"

[Sled]

There are several things to respond to, I am going to try to be as brief as I can in my answers.

Originally posted by FTJR
My understanding of a "full squadron" is 12 planes. Is that correct?

TKs

No, We started with the number "12" but deleted that because we wanted to give leeway for attacks on trains and convoys. These do not necessarily require a squadron of 12 to attack them. Yes it is possible that a CiC may only send a small group (6 or less) to attack a larger target, but that would not be wise if they want to have a decent chance of destroying that target. Plus the rule is clear that the MAIN attack force is to attack before T+60. Also a early "weak / fake" attack does not meet the requirement.

Why the change in the T+60 rule, especially in regard to ordnance?

A bunch of P51's coming in at 500mph and taking a strafing pass, is not a legitimate attack for a FSO target. We want targets to be attacked, and in almost all cases the use of rockets or bombs is appropriate.

The rule seems sound, however there will need to be some leeway in how it's enforced. If a strike of 15 planes goes after a target and effective screens take out all but 3 aircraft they are going to have to press their attack shorthanded, and IMHO they will have satisfied the "spirit" of the rule. A CiC can't be expected to divert planes from other objectives/CAP stations to fulfill this "squadron sized" rule.

This has always been the case in FSO. Even recently this has been put to the test. If a legitimate attack group is intercepted before arriving to target and destroyed, then a penalty is not going to happen.


-------------------------

We are not going to try and put into words every possible circumstance that may arise during an FSO, and what the "rule" is for it. This is why the phrase "Don't chase your tail" was created.

[WxMan]

Originally posted by SLED

A bunch of P51's coming in at 500mph and taking a strafing pass, is not a legitimate attack for a FSO target. We want targets to be attacked, and in almost all cases the use of rockets or bombs is appropriate.

 

I disagree. The original intent of the T+60 rule as well as the rule that all targets are to be attacked, were for game play considerations. They ensured that (a). All players see action. (b). All players see action in the first half of the frame.

Points awarded to the defenders for protecting a target is in essence a penalty for the attackers for not destroying it. So it should not matter what type of attack is performed, just as long as one occurs.

The new rule mandates the use of ordnance before T+60. This all but eliminates a fighter sweep or suppression before ordnance arrives on distant targets.  The rule as it currently stands severly handicaps any tactical considerations for the CiC and/or strike leader.

In addition, the new rules of specific numbers for all aircraft used is a departure from just limiting uber rides in the past.

IMHO but with all due respect, it appears that the CM's are trying to micromanage the event.

[Gaidin]

WXMan--The original intent of the T+60 rule as well as the rule that all targets are to be attacked, were for game play considerations. They ensured that (a). All players see action. (b). All players see action in the first half of the frame.

Points awarded to the defenders for protecting a target is in essence a penalty for the attackers for not destroying it. So it should not matter what type of attack is performed, just as long as one occurs.

You have made our point for us.  Many times, an attack was 2-3 p51s screaming in from 30k firing on the field and running away for something else.  There was no action for defenders.  Many CiC's would use this tactic to satisfy the attack by t+60 rule.

The new rules do not eliminate fighter sweeps, they make them what they are supposed to be.  The force the fighter sweeps to go in knowing the attacking force is coming in behind them.  If they fail, well the attack force is hit, if they are successful then the attack force can do its job.


I believe these changes will make for better game play, and ensure that all involved see action.  This will also make for some interesting plans and stratagies.(sp?)  

Before you start yelling foul and talking about micromanagement, give the new rules a chance.


Gaidin

[WxMan]

Originally posted by Gaidin
You have made our point for us.  Many times, an attack was 2-3 p51s screaming in from 30k firing on the field and running away for something else.  There was no action for defenders.  Many CiC's would use this tactic to satisfy the attack by t+60 rule.

Gaidin

No action? The defenders did not give chase? Or perhaps the Squadron CO did not take this possibility into consideration and was out of position. A tactical error?

What difference would it make if those same 2-3 P51's came screaming in from 30K with 100lb bombs. Legislate the type of ordnance required?

Originally posted by Gaidin


The new rules do not eliminate fighter sweeps, they make them what they are supposed to be.  The force the fighter sweeps to go in knowing the attacking force is coming in behind them.  If they fail, well the attack force is hit, if they are successful then the attack force can do its job.
Gaidin

I did not say that it would eliminate fighters sweeps. My precise concern was for distant targets. The travel time to target would not allow an effective sweep to occur because of the deadline, the attack force would have to hit almost immediately upon arriving with sweep. They would not have the option of waiting for the fighter sweep to become effective. In addition the advantage switches to defenders on a distant target because the attack window will narrow significantly with a ordnance deadline.

Originally posted by Gaidin

I believe these changes will make for better game play, and ensure that all involved see action.  This will also make for some interesting plans and stratagies.(sp?)  

Before you start yelling foul and talking about micromanagement, give the new rules a chance.

Gaidin

I disagree. The more rules and restrictions there are, the less room there is for strategic thinking. Each event will end up mirroring the previous one and I'm afraid that FSO will wind up a shell of what it used to be.

While I'm not yelling foul, I'm voicing my strong disagreement now because I didn't before on rules changes I thought were unecessary. Once a rule or law is implented, it becomes entrenched and rarely is revoked but is frequently added to.

[Stoney74]

Originally posted by WxMan
While I'm not yelling foul, I'm voicing my strong disagreement now because I didn't before on rules changes I thought were unecessary. Once a rule or law is implented, it becomes entrenched and rarely is revoked.

WxMan, I think these two changes will actually be transparent to everyone.  Understand the intent of the T+60 rule, because that's how it will be used by the Admins.

Just trying to get rid of some of the smoke and mirrors/lawyering that goes into some plans.  You roll a detached escort over a target at T+50 with the strikers 15 mins behind them--that doesn't violate the rule.  Send a single aircraft to flash a field at T+50 with the strikers 15 mins behind it--that does.  Just one example of what we're trying to avoid.

[WxMan]

The rule states .. All targets must be attacked within 60 minutes of the start of the frame. They must be attacked with explosive ordinance, (rockets and bombs) by a full squadron.

Now the letter of the law says that ordnance has to be dropped on target by T+60.  Stoney your example above would be in violation.

In the past the T+60 rule was considered met when a squadron sized force engaged the enemy. Engagement was defined as anytime ordnance was expended or fire was exchanged. Included was not only JABO and or bomber raids, but a fighter sweep.

Clearly I don't anybody would seriously think a lone fighter flashing a base would fullfill the requirement.