Author Topic: This scenario needs a lot of work  (Read 3186 times)

Offline puller

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2210
Re: This scenario needs a lot of work
« Reply #30 on: June 12, 2016, 02:19:36 PM »
IDK, anymore when these things like this come up and folks get into what they see as the nuts and bolts of it all I just get the same feeling pretty much everytime........  Many it seems want the easy way, or the definite advantage.

Now one cannot argue the disparity between the object points, when I saw that I was  :confused:  Both sides should probably have had 1 land base target, and 1 TF to hit.

I think the plane set favors the Allies, but I would not say by a huge margin. 

In the end, my thoughts are with Jaeger1......  Planning!!   I say that based on the mission we led.   We were assigned to hit TF 51.

We launched with 8 formations of JU-88's, and 9 escorts..........  Read that again if you have to.   I had 1 scout to use to find the TF, which I knew was going to be in the northern part of it's assigned sector.

5 of the formations went into target sector at 12k, the 3 JU's with torps ran a geometry run on the waves.   The CV was hit with torps and sunk.   He made it into target untouched by enemy fighters, there were simply none near him.  I had maybe 3 on me, and the 3rd was shot down well before ack from the TF started firing at him.

The Cruiser was dive bombed, as were 1 or 2 DD's.   We had 2 RTB.

So 3 JU-88's drew all the cover for that TF down to the deck?  Because our 10k guys reported no fighters at their alt.   

I hate to say it, and no offence to anyone out there, but we simply had no business pulling that one off. 

HUGE Kudos to the 68th and Menacing Ferrets for their role as escorts, and to MachNix ( 1841 Squadron) for locating the TF. 

Maybe that was the mission on the allied side that was light pilots?

Did everyone understand the 2 TF's were HIGH priority targets?  What didn't get sunk counted as points for the Allies, you all understood that correct?  So there was a great incentive to defend them well.......  VERY WELL!!

Maybe I totally misunderstood that and I am wrong?  Let me know if I am.

Now in the upcoming frame we get to hit a city strat, and defend one........ Should be interesting to see if, and how the dynamics change in a weeks time.

Cic's will have to look a little harder at plane, and squad assignments, some squads are going to most likely pull 2 frames in bombers, heck maybe 3 now.   

I would not expect second strikes in frame 2, with points tightening up as they will, escorts will need to concentrate on getting surviving buffs home, because going into a city strat at low alt with AAA set to .4 is basically a suicide run so I would count low JABO's out, but that's me.

In the end I cannot speak for our escorts, or scout for that matter, but we had fun.  We were successful in our role in frame 1 and that's what matters to us

 :salute
jdog
G3-MF

 :aok

I can't clip out all the good points in this on phone

 :salute jdog and rest of G3
"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."
CO   Anti-Horde

Offline Dantoo

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 964
      • http://www.9giap.com
Re: This scenario needs a lot of work
« Reply #31 on: June 12, 2016, 02:56:15 PM »
Another thing that keeps popping in FSO conversation is radar gaps and coverage. Is that something that needs to be revisited for FSO?

Gaps and coverage definitely make a difference.  We use the dar circles to typically indicate "flashing" range.  Rarely is there any actual radar coverage.
Base flashing is necessary in FSO imho because we want the players in FSO to have a strong chance of interaction, even if it is just seeing an enemy fleeing after they have shot up the bar area.
You could look at the map we are currently using, look at the circles in use and say "hey there are a lot of gaps"!  But of course flashing isn't limited to fields, it also affects citys and factorys.  Knowing AH2s limitations, a person practiced in the dark arts, can immediately deduce the position of any plane that flashes 2 objects.
This makes it very easy for me as a defender to move whatever guns I have to the most advantageous position I can achieve.
Without that full coverage, I have to start tasking scouts, putting standing patrols in risky blocking positions and taking risks on my ability to use the strongest fist against the softest nose of the opposition.  If it's a long flight for the attackers and there are just one or two routes inbound without alerting, then its easy to throw a scout in that hole, or worse.

As a defender, if I receive the gift of alert coverage that extends well out from a target area I can (and almost always do) push a fighting group way out on what is often the only plausible ingress route.  I can use that group to harass and torment the attackers gradually consuming their cover and simultaneously constantly alerting other groups to position themselves to maximum effect.  I can also do that if there was no alerting but only by increasing risk the further I push it.  That's the kind of challenge that defenders should be set.

I also use a clock.  In FSO you typically know where they are coming from, when they are leaving, where they are going, and often enough what route they are forced to take.  You can calculate easily and accurately when something or another should be flashing.  If it isn't by a certain time you now know they are coming "the other way".  You have that 1 hour rule that forces attackers into a very narrow range of choices when there is a long way between home and target.

If designers remain aware of a few of the parameters then they can be adjusted for effect.  Faster late war aircraft like B29s require a larger alert circle than an ingress of Vals.

I don't think it is too much to ask of planning CICs to have to think about the tasking beyond sticking a squad name in an XL slot in a type that those guys didn't get last week.
I also believe that FSO is largely made up of "fighter preferred" squads that particularly dislike getting issued with lumbering targets more than one week a month and would prefer a slower rate than that. 
Giving any person a reasonable chance to complete their mission and return home alive is a worthwhile objective for designers and planners and is likely to produce an immersed player happy with her experience.

I get really really tired of selective realism disguised as a desire to make bombers easier to kill.

HiTech

Matthew 24:28 For wherever the carcass is, there is where the vultures gather together.

Offline Joker312

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 576
Re: This scenario needs a lot of work
« Reply #32 on: June 12, 2016, 06:43:26 PM »
Dantoo, excellent post.

A lot of players have made some good points also.

Some think the planeset favors this side or the other and others think the number of targets to attack and defend need adjusting. Others have a totally different opinion.

To me it seems the most important aspect of each frame is planning. Given a reasonably thought out event, planning is the reason for winning or losing.

Joker
80th FS "Headhunters"
FSO Squad 412th FNVG

Online Devil 505

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8993
Re: This scenario needs a lot of work
« Reply #33 on: June 12, 2016, 09:39:14 PM »
Do you have a suggestion or examples for good distances between objectives?

In the end, the CIC and his squads are what determines the actual flight times between objectives. The CM can only separate them by miles on map. A 30 minute direct flight at 20K, might be a T+59 strike to one CIC while another CIC might make it a 15 minute NOE flight.

In my mind the ideal range from takeoff field to target is between 4 and 5 sectors (100-125 miles assuming 25 mile sectors). Late war setups, with many fast movers should be even more distant. Closer distances promote quick action, but some people don't like the idea of potentially being dead by T+30. But many also do not like long flights before seeing combat. Also, an active field for an attacker should NEVER be closer to an objective than a field for it's defenders. (been a while since I saw this happen, but it's worth mentioning)

Let's look at the objectives for Frame One. I drew brown rings with a 5 sector radius from each objective.


A128 was by far the most distant objective with only one active Allied field within 125 miles (and just barely within)
TF51 was the next farthest, with three Axis fields inside 125 miles.
TF55 and A118 had the opposite issue with bases within 100 miles with some very close at nearly 75 miles from enemy fields.

Last frame was a double -whammy with objectives either being very close or too far from active airfields.

I think that I must redefine my claim of "poor objective selection" to include "poor active field selection" as well. Maybe even more so the later, as event designers often set fixed active bases for the entire design. If we think of the range between these as the problem to be solved, then having two variables to adjust from frame to frame should allow for a more consistent balance.

The other factor to consider in promoting action post T+60 is the availability of non-active fields towards the middle for rearming and landing at the end of frame. These forward bases allow for a timely turn-around of fighters. Usually a return flight to one's original field will occupy too much time for any reasonable attempt at second sorties. 

These issues usually manifest themselves on maps with large bodies of water. BOB being one of them. Any squad based in the west will have almost no opportunity to find action at T+60. Of course, squads in the east have a much easier time.

Kommando Nowotny

FlyKommando.com

Offline Vulcan

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9891
Re: This scenario needs a lot of work
« Reply #34 on: June 13, 2016, 12:06:18 AM »
I propose next FSO we have a square map with a field on each side and everyone gets a stick (sorry you have to make your own airplane sounds on vox)   :devil

Offline Biggamer

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 579
Re: This scenario needs a lot of work
« Reply #35 on: June 13, 2016, 05:48:19 AM »
IDK, anymore when these things like this come up and folks get into what they see as the nuts and bolts of it all I just get the same feeling pretty much everytime........  Many it seems want the easy way, or the definite advantage.

Now one cannot argue the disparity between the object points, when I saw that I was  :confused:  Both sides should probably have had 1 land base target, and 1 TF to hit.

I think the plane set favors the Allies, but I would not say by a huge margin. 

In the end, my thoughts are with Jaeger1......  Planning!!   I say that based on the mission we led.   We were assigned to hit TF 51.

We launched with 8 formations of JU-88's, and 9 escorts..........  Read that again if you have to.   I had 1 scout to use to find the TF, which I knew was going to be in the northern part of it's assigned sector.

5 of the formations went into target sector at 12k, the 3 JU's with torps ran a geometry run on the waves.   The CV was hit with torps and sunk.   He made it into target untouched by enemy fighters, there were simply none near him.  I had maybe 3 on me, and the 3rd was shot down well before ack from the TF started firing at him.

The Cruiser was dive bombed, as were 1 or 2 DD's.   We had 2 RTB.

So 3 JU-88's drew all the cover for that TF down to the deck?  Because our 10k guys reported no fighters at their alt.   

I hate to say it, and no offence to anyone out there, but we simply had no business pulling that one off. 

HUGE Kudos to the 68th and Menacing Ferrets for their role as escorts, and to MachNix ( 1841 Squadron) for locating the TF. 

Maybe that was the mission on the allied side that was light pilots?

Did everyone understand the 2 TF's were HIGH priority targets?  What didn't get sunk counted as points for the Allies, you all understood that correct?  So there was a great incentive to defend them well.......  VERY WELL!!

Maybe I totally misunderstood that and I am wrong?  Let me know if I am.

Now in the upcoming frame we get to hit a city strat, and defend one........ Should be interesting to see if, and how the dynamics change in a weeks time.

Cic's will have to look a little harder at plane, and squad assignments, some squads are going to most likely pull 2 frames in bombers, heck maybe 3 now.   

I would not expect second strikes in frame 2, with points tightening up as they will, escorts will need to concentrate on getting surviving buffs home, because going into a city strat at low alt with AAA set to .4 is basically a suicide run so I would count low JABO's out, but that's me.

In the end I cannot speak for our escorts, or scout for that matter, but we had fun.  We were successful in our role in frame 1 and that's what matters to us

 :salute
jdog
G3-MF
  :aok  :salute
G3-MF

Offline captain1ma

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14384
      • JG54 website
Re: This scenario needs a lot of work
« Reply #36 on: June 13, 2016, 09:26:23 AM »
if each side has 4 objectives, that equates to 25 per objective(give or take), whether it be attack or defend. people need to learn what the average turnout for each squad is, what that squads strengths and weaknesses are and how to best use them in a setup.

to me this setup comes down to the Allies were out planned, out maneuvered, and out calculated. Alpo and I spend 2.5 nights on the phone and probably 8 or more hours of planning. we asked questions of nefari as to what was allowed and what wasn't so as not to break any rules. we used
everything to our advantage.

its easy to blame CiC's, but we all have lives. I didn't want to give up 8-10hours of my free time, but I did it for the game and to make it fun and realistic.

I think ALL players should be involved in CIC planning so that everyone can learn just how complex it is. its no easy chore from the many times ive done it. I now try to let my squaddies try it out also, so that they get a feel for it.

its easy to sit there and say "well, change this and change that". We were task with specific situation for specific targets under specific conditions.
we did our job! period. better luck next time!

maybe all the Allied CO's should get together on the phone or Skype and plan their next frame TOGETHER. then things might go better, and they can all learn from each other. better tactics lead to better experiences which leads to more fun. communication is key.

Offline SlipKnt

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2606
Re: This scenario needs a lot of work
« Reply #37 on: June 13, 2016, 01:12:29 PM »
if each side has 4 objectives, that equates to 25 per objective(give or take), whether it be attack or defend. people need to learn what the average turnout for each squad is, what that squads strengths and weaknesses are and how to best use them in a setup.

to me this setup comes down to the Allies were out planned, out maneuvered, and out calculated. Alpo and I spend 2.5 nights on the phone and probably 8 or more hours of planning. we asked questions of nefari as to what was allowed and what wasn't so as not to break any rules. we used
everything to our advantage.

its easy to blame CiC's, but we all have lives. I didn't want to give up 8-10hours of my free time, but I did it for the game and to make it fun and realistic.

I think ALL players should be involved in CIC planning so that everyone can learn just how complex it is. its no easy chore from the many times ive done it. I now try to let my squaddies try it out also, so that they get a feel for it.

its easy to sit there and say "well, change this and change that". We were task with specific situation for specific targets under specific conditions.
we did our job! period. better luck next time!

maybe all the Allied CO's should get together on the phone or Skype and plan their next frame TOGETHER. then things might go better, and they can all learn from each other. better tactics lead to better experiences which leads to more fun. communication is key.

I am a BIG supporter of planning for an event.  Some squads don't and some do.  Nothing is more frustrating than planning with up to 4 squads and 1 squad is unresponsive all the way up to 5 to 10 minutes after launch...

I also believe in having my squad mates work on our squad and group planning.  It develops strategic and tactical planning thinking.  I like to keep my squad informed down to the details.  Perhaps this is why we have success.  Yes.  This is a game.  In the MAs, we fly loosely.  Somewhat intoxicated.  And we have fun engaging and taking bases.  We hate defending in the MAs. 

But when I comes to FSO, we run it as a military organization.  Some of our guys are R/L combat pilots (retired guys).  Many of us come from other fields in the military.  One of us come from the spec ops community.  Several from the "ground game".  The rest are very serious about FSO.  We practice and train for upcoming events.  FSO is a different animal altogether.  For this reason it is why I stress communications between the squads to reach the objectives.     

My 2 cents in this is that if you put in the effort you should succeed or have a REALLY fantastic flight.  Especially if the other side planned just as hard.  That is what makes it fun.  FSO for many of us is pretending we are back in a real life combat environment.  There is something soothing to my soul about that.

As Jaeger said.  Putting in the hours planning and conducting squad training really brings it together for our squaddies.  Everyone seems to have fun.  Especially if / when the plan works.  Having a helicopter pilot, 2 fighter jocks, an attack jock and a C130 navigator has its benefits.  It is cool to watch the changes on the fly when something doesn't start to go as planned when our guys start with the math in public.  We use math and geometry all the time to gain advantages.  And it works every time.  I think once, in over 6 years of doing this we ended up about 30 seconds behind a planned schedule.  That is not bad....

I highly recommend everyone involved in planning for your squads, should get involved in reaching out to supporting squads within a group to work together.  I know a lot of squads that like working with us when we reach out.

<<S>>
SlipKnoT
DCS:
SlipKnoT
vCSG-3, VMA-513 Flying Nightmares (AV8B)

Offline waystin2

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10165
Re: This scenario needs a lot of work
« Reply #38 on: June 13, 2016, 01:18:43 PM »
I am a BIG supporter of planning for an event.  Some squads don't and some do.  Nothing is more frustrating than planning with up to 4 squads and 1 squad is unresponsive all the way up to 5 to 10 minutes after launch...



I concur.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2016, 02:37:13 PM by waystin2 »
CO for the Pigs On The Wing
& The nicest guy in Aces High!

Offline puller

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2210
Re: This scenario needs a lot of work
« Reply #39 on: June 13, 2016, 03:04:33 PM »
You can plan for hours and hours and write the best orders you can imagine...and it won't be worth a damn at T+20...

All this wailing and gnashing of teeth over imbalanced scenarios is way out of context...

If the scenarios were "even" would they even be fun???  If you knew the outcome of the scenario was gonna be a draw every frame, would you even be here...Or if you knew that you're at a disadvantage from the start are you gonna try harder to be successful???....Or are you just gonna lay down and take it???

I don't know anymore...And this hasn't been spoke of out of the squad...but I'll let y'all know...we're about done with FSO....we all love it...we all look forward to it on Friday nights....and we give it our best every Friday night...I think the reason we love it so much is because we KNOW for a fact that we are at a disadvantage every frame...and we do great....I just don't know anymore....
"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."
CO   Anti-Horde

Offline Joker312

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 576
Re: This scenario needs a lot of work
« Reply #40 on: June 13, 2016, 06:17:00 PM »
Puller..... "Don't rage quit Bro"

<S>
Joker
80th FS "Headhunters"
FSO Squad 412th FNVG

Offline puller

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2210
Re: This scenario needs a lot of work
« Reply #41 on: June 13, 2016, 06:25:15 PM »
Puller..... "Don't rage quit Bro"

<S>

 :rofl :rofl

Rage quit...no...we do good and all love it...

As I said in my previous post...I just don't know anymore  :(

"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."
CO   Anti-Horde

Offline Zoney

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6503
Re: This scenario needs a lot of work
« Reply #42 on: June 13, 2016, 07:17:49 PM »
:rofl :rofl

Rage quit...no...we do good and all love it...

As I said in my previous post...I just don't know anymore  :(


If we were neighbors this is where I would invite you over, go in to the garage, crack open a couple of cold ones and we would just sit and relax a bit.  I would then remind you that although imperfect, this is the best there is.  I'd tell you to remember why you enjoy it so much, I would list off a bunch of names of your friends that play and would miss you.  I would tell you that by re-creating these little pieces of history we remember the brave men that fought this war and honor them in our own way.  I would tell you to take a little break, take your wife out to dinner and a movie.  Take a weekend fishing trip.

Then log back in, goggle up, and roll down the runway with your friends.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2016, 07:26:34 PM by Zoney »
Wag more, bark less.

Offline captain1ma

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14384
      • JG54 website
Re: This scenario needs a lot of work
« Reply #43 on: June 13, 2016, 07:49:00 PM »
Devil!!!! you gave away my secret plans?!!! what the hell!!!!! LOL  :D   :bolt:

Online Devil 505

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8993
Re: This scenario needs a lot of work
« Reply #44 on: June 13, 2016, 07:59:09 PM »
Devil!!!! you gave away my secret plans?!!! what the hell!!!!! LOL  :D   :bolt:

I think the secret was out when we deep six'd their ships!  :devil
Kommando Nowotny

FlyKommando.com