Der Kessel - Friday Squad Ops Stalingrad Airlift

[Nefarious]

Greetings!

Grab your Snow Gear because in November we head East, to that city infamous city on the Volga.

Their will be two new special objectives this FSO. A "simulated" Airlift Objective and a Pitomnik Defenders Objective. Please read the rules carefully and contact me with any questions.

Frame Dates are November 1st, 8th and 15th. Squad Modification ends and Squad CICs will be selected Thursday, Sept 24th.

Good luck all!

http://ahevents.org/fso-current-next-event.html

[Nefarious]

That's October 24th for CICs and mods. 

[SlipKnt]

G3-MF is updated for November!

 
SlipKnoT

[CptA]

I thought others would have commented by now, but I guess not, so I'll take my shot at expressing my dissatisfaction with the next FSO. Frankly, the radical departure from the normal FSO concept of this setup has me more than a little concerned about the direction it appears to be trying to take the FSO community, and I'm surprised that there has not been more of a reaction here.

First, the complexity of this "scenario" (and I use that comparison to the typical Saturday scenario event intentionally), is such that it is going to be extremely hard if not impossible for a CiC to command and control his forces once they launch. We all know how hard it is to get our people to read and follow even simplistic orders...but this one has so many little nit-picky and unique rules that this one definately violates the KISS principle.

Next, a glance at the map indicates an extremely large ammount of available terrain, but the focus of the objectives seem to force everything into a tiny 4-grid square area, thereby effectively robbing the commander of the freedom to maneuver, or to seek a less obvious route to the target. While the scenario lists 2 objectives (re-supply of Stalingrad and defense of Pitomnik Airfield), the close proximity of these two fields results in it being in reality a single objective...the loss of Pitomnik equals the inabilty to re-supply Stalingrad. The 2 objectives are just too close together.

Instead of spreading the fight over a much larger piece of the terrain, and providing some measures for a commander to achieve a local superiority thru numbers or skillfull positioning of forces, you appear to be forcing all of the fight into a very small area. Basically you are setting up a giant MA furball, and I'm not buying into that kind of setup.

Also, I hope the inclusion of the P-40F in this setup was a typo, as I have to wonder why we are including a 1943 aircraft in a 1942 scenario...P-40Bs and P-40Es would make more sense.

Lastly, this setup continues the recent trend within the FSO of "single-sided" setups (i.e "The Green Desert" and "To Win The Winter Sky") where one side does nothing but defend, while the other does nothing but attack. I believe that this type of setup betrays the spirit of the FSO that I have come to love and look forward to for the past 12 years.

In fact it makes me not want to participate.

CptA
VMF-101 Nightmares

[Nefarious]

I thought others would have commented by now, but I guess not, so I'll take my shot at expressing my dissatisfaction with the next FSO. Frankly, the radical departure from the normal FSO concept of this setup has me more than a little concerned about the direction it appears to be trying to take the FSO community, and I'm surprised that there has not been more of a reaction here.

First, the complexity of this "scenario" (and I use that comparison to the typical Saturday scenario event intentionally), is such that it is going to be extremely hard if not impossible for a CiC to command and control his forces once they launch. We all know how hard it is to get our people to read and follow even simplistic orders...but this one has so many little nit-picky and unique rules that this one definately violates the KISS principle.

Next, a glance at the map indicates an extremely large ammount of available terrain, but the focus of the objectives seem to force everything into a tiny 4-grid square area, thereby effectively robbing the commander of the freedom to maneuver, or to seek a less obvious route to the target. While the scenario lists 2 objectives (re-supply of Stalingrad and defense of Pitomnik Airfield), the close proximity of these two fields results in it being in reality a single objective...the loss of Pitomnik equals the inabilty to re-supply Stalingrad. The 2 objectives are just too close together.

Instead of spreading the fight over a much larger piece of the terrain, and providing some measures for a commander to achieve a local superiority thru numbers or skillfull positioning of forces, you appear to be forcing all of the fight into a very small area. Basically you are setting up a giant MA furball, and I'm not buying into that kind of setup.

Also, I hope the inclusion of the P-40F in this setup was a typo, as I have to wonder why we are including a 1943 aircraft in a 1942 scenario...P-40Bs and P-40Es would make more sense.

Lastly, this setup continues the recent trend within the FSO of "single-sided" setups (i.e "The Green Desert" and "To Win The Winter Sky") where one side does nothing but defend, while the other does nothing but attack. I believe that this type of setup betrays the spirit of the FSO that I have come to love and look forward to for the past 12 years.

In fact it makes me not want to participate.

CptA
VMF-101 Nightmares

To answer some of your concerns.

The Pitomnik Resupply and Defenders Objective will take place at the same field. A25 is the base the He 111s will land/rearm at, and the Pitomnik defenders will launch from that field. These will not be the only two objectives in this FSO as you seem to be concerned about. The Allies will be attacking 2 to 3 fields and vehicle bases and city strats. So it's not really entirely one sided. So the fight will not be centralized around Pitomnik/Stalingrad. The map I included on the setup page will show how the fight will be spread out more than 4 grids.

The P-40F was chosen as more of an in-between for the P-40E and the P-40N. Obviously the engines are the big difference here, but it will still be competitive against the Axis and not an overwhelming force.

These are some of the things we could have discussed in the several PMs I included you and Filth on in the last two weeks. I still appreciate your input though <S>

[gyrene81]

please say the puffy ack at stalingrad will be disabled or seriously dumbed down...

[perdue3]

Im not quite on CptA's side yet, but Im leaning his way. Allow me to explain:

The Green Desert was indeed one sided but not my design. The "defend only trend" that you mentioned is right on. I have no problem with defending only, but it should be occasional. I.E. 3 a year and spaced out. I understand that Late War Luftwaffe is defend only and essentially anything late war is defend only for Axis so that may be hard to do. So, maybe there is nothing we can do to stop the "only defend" setups. That doesn't bother me all that much. What does is the radical changes that Nefarious seems to be forcing upon FSO (this is not a slap in the face). I am a fan of the simple and easy-to-follow setups. Im not against complex scoring by no means, but why change when things are great? Another reason why I am not completely backing up CptA is because I love Eastern Front and it is always a slaughterhouse. However, kills will not matter as much as objective in this one so it seems that Nef has found a way to make the score not appear as lopsided as the fight will be. So I am just waiting it out to see what happens


<S>

[mthrockmor]

On an average FSO night now many birds do you manage to get into the air?

boo

[ELD66]

Recently around 300. That is pilots, if there are bomber formations even more.

[Squire]

The many 1943-45 8th/15th Air Force setups (ETO and MED), Japan 1945 and 1940 Battle of Britain setups (just to name a few) that we have done in the last decade where one side just defends were not radical departures from the past or deviations from the spirit of FSO. Many designs have just a defender. You will continue to see a mix of both types; attacker-defender and attacker-attacker (where both sides do both). Have fun.  

[Nefarious]

This FSO will use the "typical" standard scoring as indicated in the setup and not the scoring system I rolled out back in my last setup.

The only real big difference in this FSO is the addition of two objectives of which we have never seen before. The scoring for these two objectives isn't really all that "radical". Fly the "supplies" in, get points. Fly the "personnel" out, get points.

1) The Airlift Objective - In reality it's just another bomber mission, but instead of bombing the enemy field the objective is to land at A25, rearm, then take back off and land at the designated fields.

2) Pitomnik Defenders Objective - This is basically just the Ace Missions I do in my setups, expanded to two whole squads every frame. Their objective is to shoot down enemy aircraft (get points) and defend the airlift objective at Pitomnik.

EDIT: I would also like to add again that this FSO isn't really "single sided". The Allies will have multiple targets to attack outside of the Airlift Objective. My original idea was to have a standard style event with both sides having Offensive and Defensive Objectives, but I had to remove formations because the fact that the Drones are lost on the runway after Rearm. In doing this, the Axis lost a huge force multiplier and it's why I dropped the standard Offensive objectives for the Axis.

So the target breakdown will be more like 3 or 4 Allied Offensive Objectives to 1 Axis Offensive Objective.

[Arlo]

"I-16 20mm option will be disabled."

Why? This can't be for balance sake.

[Nefarious]

"I-16 20mm option will be disabled."

Why? This can't be for balance sake.

It was brought to my attention and verified that the I-16 rarely used this gun package and was rare in front line service.

[gyrene81]

"I-16 20mm option will be disabled."

Why? This can't be for balance sake.

lay off the cookies and with the lack of 20mm's you will be lighter...then you can take 100% fuel.

[Arlo]

And it's as if the ShVAKs never existed. 

I'm all for balance.