Joker I want to jump in here and explain a few things. Often players have some misconceptions about FSO and how they ‘should’ be ran. First though let me say this is not a criticism on my part on your post, but more of an attempt to explain why things are managed and designed the way they are and why many of your ideas would not work.
1) "Overall numbers". I would think that 200 defenders against 200 attackers is not the way it would have been planned way back in 1944-1945. The ratio should be 2.5 to 3 to 1 in favor of attackers.
In general you are right. Most designs in FSO would favor the attackers in numbers, but it would greatly depend on the year, theatre, and the plane set. Attackers would have to give up alt, position, and focus on a ground target before becoming offensive, but
we will never have a 3 to 1 favor for the attackers in FSO. In fact we would never even have a 2 to 1 design in FSO. With 450 players you would have 150 defending pilots VS 300 attacking pilots. It would result in a wash. Even an inexperience player would see that the defending side would to totally routed and destroyed along with the target they were supposed to defend. The variables that go in to balancing sides are given a lot of thought by the FSO team. Never perfect, but has been in use for years and works well.
2) "The fact that the targets are known prior to the attack". There should be 9 or so targets, 2 of which must be attacked and bonus points given for additional targets each frame. This would be more realistic. It would force the defenders to spread out and search for incomming attacks and not just sit and wait for the attack they know must come.
This is a common misconception for players. I have even had CM’s argue this point, but the growth, success, and popularity of FSO has in large part gone to this particular design element.
From the beginning players in FSO (what was called Tour of Duty the first couple years) were guaranteed a few things, one of which was ‘action’. What you suggest, 9 targets and only 2 must be attacked would lead to the death of FSO. You have to understand that FSO is not a scenario and never will be. FSO and scenarios are completely different animals and have entirely different design elements that cannot be mated. In a scenario you have no idea what will be attacked, when it will be attacked and how it will be attacked. Consequently you could have players fly around for 2 or more hours and not see any action, let alone fire a shot. I have experienced this first hand. This is not a dig on scenarios, but simply a design fact. Yes some scenarios may have a much greater chance of engagement with the enemy, but in FSO it is guaranteed. The ONLY way someone will not see action in a FSO frame is if:
1. A squad is a no show.
2. The CiC does not follow his objectives.
There is a 3rd possibility, and that is if a squad is wiped out before they reach their target, but that is very rare. In the 7 plus years we have been running FSO’s I can only recall that happening a half a dozen times or so. More often it was the 1st or 2nd reason I listed.
I have said over the years I have had a saying I apply to events.
The quickest way to kill an event is lack of action. Because both sides know what to attack and what to defend in every FSO frame players will never have to worry about lack of action. Some will say it is too canned, but that ridiculous. The possibilities in FSO are still wide-ranging. If you are defending a target you don’t know:
- When it will be attacked (with in the 1st hour)
- What type of enemy aircraft you will engage
- What altitude the enemy will be
- What direction the enemy will come from
- How many enemy aircraft will attack
- If their will be any sweeps, diversions, waves in the attack
Despite the fact that FSO gives both sides what targets will be attacked and what has to be defended players have fun time and time again. They have fun because FSO offers enough variables to keep each side and player guessing what will happen in the next 10 minutes.
3) "The Plane Mix". During 1944 there just wasnt that many KI-61's, KI-84's and N1K2's available. The Air Forces of Japan were decimated by this time and the pilots were not the elite that flew from 1939 to 1943, they were mostly low time pilots flying aircraft that suffered from unreliable engines in aircraft that were built without "Quality Control" being given even a second thought. During the war there were almost 11000 Zekes built and only 2600-2700 Tony's, 3400-3500 Franks, 400 N1K2's. Given these numbers it would seem that 60-70% of the Japanese fighter force would be a mix of A6M-2's, A6M-3's, and A6M-5's, 10-15% KI-61-I's, 15-20% KI-84's, and 5% N1K2's. The US mix is fine as there were almost 10000 F4U's and TBM/TBF's built and more than 12000 F6F's completed during the war. Given these facts there should be no more than 10 N1K2's for instance and at least 100 Zeke's ( including MANY A6M-2's) in a force of 200.
I appreciate your desire for historical accuracy as far as the manufactured plane set and what would or would not be available in a Pacific plane set. Nevertheless what we settle on for an FSO design will always sacrifice historical accuracy for playability. In other words the ‘fun factor’ is paramount in a FSO design. I don’t see what fun it would be for Axis in the last FSO using your suggestion. First we would have had about 150 Axis aircraft (this is just using the 2 to 1, not even the 3 to 1 you mentioned) VS about 300 Allied aircraft. The Axis would have A6M2’s, A6M5’s, KI61’s, Ki84’s, and just a few N1K2’s. What you suggest above would give the majority of the plane set to be the A6M2’s and A6M5’s and only 8 N1K2’s (5% that you stated above). Then a few 61’s and 84’s. I am sorry. This would not work. I don’t see what chance the above Axis plane set would have against F4U’s, F6F’s and TBM’s.
4) "All aircraft of both sides takeoff at T-00". The Japanese just didnt have the gas necessary to train let alone have all their fighters up at the same time. THIS WAY OF RUNNING AN EVENT REALLY NEEDS TO BE CHANGED. Only 5-10% of the defenders a/c should be allowed to be airborne prior to detecting an attack. Alot of effort is put into achieving surprise. No CO in his right mind would commit to an attack where the enemy had advance warning and was waiting.
Well, we have been doing it for many years. Much of what I said above explains why it works. We can’t and will not have players sit on the runway for 15, 30, or 45 minutes. Adolph Galland said
“Their element is to attack, to track, to hunt, and to destroy the enemy.
Only in this way can the eager and skillful fighter pilot display his ability.
Tie him to a narrow and confined task, rob him of his initiative,
and you take away from him the best and most valuable qualities he posses:
aggressive spirit, joy of action, and the passion of the hunter. This touches on the fun factor. Let the defender seek out the enemy. Send out scouts, and with some luck maybe they can find them before they are over the target. CiC’s enjoy the planning end of this and the player certainly enjoy looking for enemy rather than counting the trees at the end of the runway.
I would be more than happy to discuss this with you at length. I appreciate your feed back, but much of it will not work with FSO and lend to its continued success.
