FSO "Strategic Orders"

[jolly22]

Of course.  And like Drano said, - No one can stop one pass on the bombers.  It is impossible for any close escort to prevent one pass.  Can't be done in close proximity to the bombers.

So at that point, have the single ju88s with the next to useless armament, we're sitting ducks.

[Drano]

My squad has had FSO discussions, or maybe it was complaints, doesn't matter what you call it.  The consensus in our group is the FSO campaign are flawed at the design level.  There are really no surprises when surprise could add a pucker factor.

Then maybe a CiC and his squad leads could have options to be creative in their planning.

I'd have to disagree that it's the design. Sure,some are better than others but--seriously? I mean what else could you possibly do here? You have a planeset. It is what it is. There simply isn't every plane that was available in the RL campaign available in the game--usually. So what substitutes that can be made are made. There have been discussions to this affect on the forums from time to time and those have been tweaked. You have objectives to attack and defend. Side balance is never historically accurate as it would just suck for one side usually. Take this FSO. The LW had scarcely any presence in this battle in RL. How about 10% for the axis? See what I mean? What else would you do? Again--this ain't hard.

But--on your second point I'd agree completely. A simple case of garbage in--garbage out. If you're the CiC and you make up the **orders** at the last minute that rhyme with "all routes are up to flight leaders' discretion"--that's garbage in. You didn't take the time to come up with a plan when it was your turn to do so. That's lame and it possibly might ruin everyone's fun come Friday night. Had a busy week? Get in line! That's why there's multiple guys per squad that get the objectives for the frame. Some of us get the objectives every week. All of us get the orders every week. They aren't the same. Read them. Know them. Execute them. If you do that and it didn't work out--maybe it was because the other guy had a better plan! Hell I've flown with guys in these events for years and at the beginning of every frame without fail the dumb questions start. What plane are we in? What field? What's the fuel load? Jaysus could you just read the email that I know you all got for 20 seconds and jot it out on a post-it so you know at least THAT much? If you don't do that it's a simple case of garbage in--garbage out. You'll get out of the frame what you put into it. Ain't hard. If the CiC DID take the time to come up with a plan and you either A) didn't even bother to read it or B) just ignored it and went wherever you wanted to--that's garbage in. Chances are the frame is gonna be a cluster and your action or inaction were a large contributing factor! WTG! We've all been there. Look around. That's why frames end up the way they do a lot of the time. Now think about it. The frames that went well. Weren't they the ones that had an actual plan that people actually communicated and acted like a unit? Pretty much huh? Garbage in--garbage out.

Are you (the FSO community) doing your part to make the frame what it could be? Or did you just come here to fly an MA that has historical plane matchups? If the latter then you're misinformed as that's not what events are supposed to be about. It's about missions and strategy. If you're ignoring them trust me you're really screwing youselves out of an awful lot of the fun these frames are intended to be.

[Nefarious]

There are really no surprises when surprise could add a pucker factor.

I'd like to know more about what you mean here.

[Wiley]

I'd like to know more about what you mean here.

Not sure what he means, but with FSO, you basically have:

Allies- Attack fields A, B, and C and defend fields X, Y, and Z.
Axis- Attack fields X, Y, and Z and defend fields A, B, and C.

You know the enemy is coming, you know within 10-15 minutes when they'll be arriving.  It's simplistic.  The way the majority of the players are, it needs to be.  If it were done differently, it would create more unpredictability, but it would also increase the chances for people to have a 'dud' night if the enemy didn't show in the area they were in.

Wiley.

[Stampf]

So at that point, have the single ju88s with the next to useless armament, we're sitting ducks.

Yeah - 88's are ducks.  That's where Drano's post below yours comes into play.  Tactics, subterfuge, call it what you will.  You must be creative and get those bombers in there some way, coupled with the available other squadrons assigned into your mission group.  Teamwork.  You must have a plan and because as Wiley notes - it isn't too difficult to narrow down the likely times and places the bombers will be at.  So somehow some way, when we all have bomber duty - the way must be found, or in the least try to have as much fun with it at possible by being creative in the approach and plan, and in the playing the chess game part of it with the opposition.  Not always going to work of course, but nothing always works.

<S>

[SlipKnt]

I know that whenever I see suggested routes from a CiC I will try to fly them offline to see what I am dealing with in regards to time, alt, and speed.

I use specific CiC orders more of as a recommendation or guidline.  Those types of orders are never really meant for us to stick specifically to them unless you are bringing in more than one strike to a specified IP where numbers enroute are key to safety prior to committing to your final leg.

I always try to communicate my squad's intent as early as possible to ensure all squads are in the right place at the right time doing the right thing.  I know that if I am an attack plane or bomber, it is critical for the sweep, escort, or CAP planes to be in place when the poop starts to hit the fan. 

Sometimes, depending on terrain, NOE is a great tactic to use as long as your sweepers are in 3 to 4 dimensional mode and you planned for it ahead of time.  I prefer NOE spokewheel type attacks in JABBO missions.  I prefer deception and layers with altitude bombing if time permits.  Again, it always depends on the situation.

I'd say that the most important thing is that CiC assigns an ATTACK lead and a DEFENSIVE CAP lead.  As long as those assigned actually lead, then there shouldn't be a problem.  I know real life gets in the way.  It has with me until I finally settled down in TX this past month.  I know that if my squad isn't lead, I usually try to put a recommendation together and send it off the the participating squads on my mission to ensure everyone knows what our intent is.  And of that strike's lead needs us to do something different at crunch time, we flex to that plan.  Always leave some wiggle in your plan to flex.   

   Sometimes the best laid plan falls apart when the first shot is fired. 



 :rockSlipKnoT

[jolly22]

Yeah - 88's are ducks.  That's where Drano's post below yours comes into play.  Tactics, subterfuge, call it what you will.  You must be creative and get those bombers in there some way, coupled with the available other squadrons assigned into your mission group.  Teamwork.  You must have a plan and because as Wiley notes - it isn't too difficult to narrow down the likely times and places the bombers will be at.  So somehow some way, when we all have bomber duty - the way must be found, or in the least try to have as much fun with it at possible by being creative in the approach and plan, and in the playing the chess game part of it with the opposition.  Not always going to work of course, but nothing always works.

<S>

Agreed. So we tried the NOE plan.

But what COULD happen. Is the CiCs give the allied multiple bases to attack. We choose.. Fairly close proximity. (ie: A52, A57, A65 are available targets). Give the axis the SAME fields, then allow the allied to pick and choose. if you hit A52 first frame, It's not allowed in 2nd/3rd frame.

No matter what we do in the JU88s (with singles at least) we're going to get destroyed.

[-ammo-]

I'd like to know more about what you mean here.

Excuse me for not being clear.  And by no means should you or any of the FSO CMs take my comments as a knock - that is not what I want to portray.

What I mean is, normally, the objectives given to CiCs don't give them a lot of room for creativity in planning.  As mentioned by Wiley, targets X,Y, and Z must be attacked and defended.  I get it, this measure is built in to ensure action for everyone.  Everyone knows where the planes are upping from and about what time to expect the attack.

If it wasn't so clear cut on what to expect on the defenders side, it would add an element of the unknown, and the defender would need to plan for that, and luck would certainly be a bigger factor. 

Maybe not all will agree that this would improve the FSO experience. 

Additionally, I think enhanced arena settings would give the CMs more ability to enhance the playing event's environment would be great, and maybe with the next revision of AH, it will be true. For example, if were possible to adjust radar for certain areas in the SEA and not a global setting, where it would could be used to the defender and not the attacker. Just my thoughts

[Drano]

What I mean is, normally, the objectives given to CiCs don't give them a lot of room for creativity in planning. 

I call BS on that. The problem happens when the side CO sees the objectives, puts in the minimum time planning and comes up with a straight line that goes from field A to field Z, Field B to field Y and field C to field X. THAT is where the problem you're describing comes from. NOT the design. The side CO takes some time to come up with an ACTUAL plan of attack and it can be fun. The whole "creativity" thing lies with the side CO and the side CO alone. Just takes a little effort but you can come up with routes that actually have turns in them. Misdirection is a tactic rarely used here. It's a 3D battlefield. Use everything--including altitude. Altitude, time, radar ranges--use them all! It can maybe actually work! You can probably survive a successful strike in Ju-88s! Hell I've survived missions in a Stuka that I was sure was an obvious suicide run. But like I said in my other post--garbage in-----garbage out. Come up with one of those straight line from launch field to target field plans isn't only NOT creative---it's not even a plan.

[ImADot]

The active strike launch fields are not always the fields that need to be defended. Many times there are limits as to what fields are active, for historical reasons, but many times all fields are active and the CiC has a choice. So the enemy doesn't always know the strike launched from field A just because field A needs to be defended against attack.

I agree with Drano. Everyone's FSO experience is directly proportional to the effort put forth by the CiC to design orders and the ability of participating squads to stay on task.

[Ratsy]

I do not represent my squadron in these discussions -disclaimer.

I might not be reading the tone of this thread correctly.  So, I have to ask a question.  Is the general expectation for the CiC to provide detailed routes for attacks and detailed patrol areas for CAPs?

Thanks.

 

[jolly22]

I do not represent my squadron in these discussions -disclaimer.

I might not be reading the tone of this thread correctly.  So, I have to ask a question.  Is the general expectation for the CiC to provide detailed routes for attacks and detailed patrol areas for CAPs?

Thanks.

 

Something better than a straight line route...

Here's what should happen. The CiC should know if his schedule for the week will be busy.. IF IT IS, give early orders about what needs to be hit, plane set, etc. Allow the Squads time to come up with decent flight routes. Giving orders a day before FSO that is point A to point B is not doing anyone good.

IF the CiC has time to come up with a decent plan, still come up with it early, send it out to the squads and be open to discussion.

 
JRjolly

[Wiley]

Just takes a little effort but you can come up with routes that actually have turns in them. Misdirection is a tactic rarely used here. It's a 3D battlefield. Use everything--including altitude. Altitude, time, radar ranges--use them all! It can maybe actually work! You can probably survive a successful strike in Ju-88s! Hell I've survived missions in a Stuka that I was sure was an obvious suicide run. But like I said in my other post--garbage in-----garbage out. Come up with one of those straight line from launch field to target field plans isn't only NOT creative---it's not even a plan.

A good deal of the time, straight line is almost necessary to get there under the T+60 requirement.

Wiley.

[Wiley]

If it wasn't so clear cut on what to expect on the defenders side, it would add an element of the unknown, and the defender would need to plan for that, and luck would certainly be a bigger factor. 

I've seen it done in the other sim.  It was at times some of the best gameplay I've ever had, it could also be an evening of boring holes in the sky.  I get why they do it the way they do here.  I think the majority would not care for it.

Wiley.

[-ammo-]

I call BS on that. The problem happens when the side CO sees the objectives, puts in the minimum time planning and comes up with a straight line that goes from field A to field Z, Field B to field Y and field C to field X. THAT is where the problem you're describing comes from. NOT the design. The side CO takes some time to come up with an ACTUAL plan of attack and it can be fun. The whole "creativity" thing lies with the side CO and the side CO alone. Just takes a little effort but you can come up with routes that actually have turns in them. Misdirection is a tactic rarely used here. It's a 3D battlefield. Use everything--including altitude. Altitude, time, radar ranges--use them all! It can maybe actually work! You can probably survive a successful strike in Ju-88s! Hell I've survived missions in a Stuka that I was sure was an obvious suicide run. But like I said in my other post--garbage in-----garbage out. Come up with one of those straight line from launch field to target field plans isn't only NOT creative---it's not even a plan.

I agree with you on your point that a higher level of effort in planning by the CiC would improve the event - no doubt about that and I am sure the majority agree.  But that doesn't mean the event planning at the design level couldn't be improved as well.  

I also stand by my thoughts that more fidelity to arena settings for historical terrains would be great for events - whether achievable or not.  That is HTC's to consider.  Imagine if each side only had radar coverage for it's own territory, and radar didn't work in ravines and behind natural obstacles.  Or what if each base did not have it's own radar facility but were at strategic locations.  The current arena settings are great for the MA with make believe terrains made to enhance game play, but I propose they are less than optimal for historical terrains.