Incorporating a Ground War element in a Scenario.. how do we do it?

[Brooke]

With the way Stalin's Fourth was set up, that didn't seem to be too big of an issue.

No, not a huge issue.  As I said, there were folks who were fine with it (like me -- I loved it), but there were also folks who didn't like being in GV's much.  And a lot of folks who were OK with still preferred planes.  They wanted to serve some in tanks and get rotated to airplanes, which is where their passion lies.

Again, what we were trying to do with Tunisia and Red Storm is to create a portion of the event specifically for GV enthusiasts, for people who would be in tanks, desire to stay in tanks, and have a passion for tanks, to have it specifically for the folks who would get into it deeply.  That was the attempt.

Tonight, I will post my thoughts on how best to do things based on my observations so far.

[OOZ662]

Again, what we were trying to do with Tunisia and Red Storm is to create a portion of the event specifically for GV enthusiasts, for people who would be in tanks, desire to stay in tanks, and have a passion for tanks, to have it specifically for the folks who would get into it deeply.  That was the attempt.

Why? Having the choice and option to be either flier or driver appears a lot less "broken" than the current system.

[Brooke]

Why?

I just am telling you what I saw (from my perspective, not everyone's perspective) and what intentions were for Tunisia and Red Storm.  So the answer to "why" is "because that's how I perceived it" and "because of the reasons I already explained".

In scenarios, we try different ways of doing things from time to time.  But in AH, for every 100 players, there are 100 different opinions on what is best.  Some things you will like better than others.  You might not like having folks dedicated to a role instead of switching around throughout the scenario.  But that is a perference on your part.  Neither way is right or wrong, and different folks have different preferences, which is why we try different approaches from time to time.

[USRanger]

I'm getting a unique GVing perspective with my position in this scenario.  I'll do a write up on this subject, but I would like to wait until the scenario is over to see how the rest plays out first.  I can say right now though that having a GV portion should be a part of every scenario.

[Anaxogoras]

I'm getting a unique GVing perspective with my position in this scenario.  I'll do a write up on this subject, but I would like to wait until the scenario is over to see how the rest plays out first.  I can say right now though that having a GV portion should be a part of every scenario.

BoB? Big week?

[Fencer51]

BoB? Big week?

I can do it, lemme check my references!

[OOZ662]

BoB?

DDay was part of BoB, right?

[USRanger]

My gawd, with a little common sense I guess I need to add.

[Anaxogoras]

My gawd, with a little common sense I guess I need to add.

Naturally!

[USRanger]

[USRanger]

   My opinion at this time is that in scenarios such as this, with pilots getting two lives, and deaths in GVs from the air not counting against the GVer's life count, that it should be open season on GVs by any plane in the air.  It's the most realistic (this is a scenario), and adds an entirely new dimension to the action.  More targets=more to do, and the GVers have to change the strategy to include air defense.  My tankers like to use Wirbels too.  I think there should be more GV slots also.  The tank battles so far have been epic & very fun, but the limited GV numbers hamper the battles that could be attained.  Yes, this is primarily a flying game, but if a scenario is going to have a GV side, it deserves to go all out just like the flying side of the battle.  I would say that next scenario that has GVs, double the GV slots and see how much they fill, as an experiment.  As long as the air slots fill up as normal, what would having a kick-ass big battle on the ground also hurt?  More fun for everyone IMO.  Larger GV battles that supply plenty of targets for the air boys.

Out.

[trotter]

  My opinion at this time is that in scenarios such as this, with pilots getting two lives, and deaths in GVs from the air not counting against the GVer's life count, that it should be open season on GVs by any plane in the air.  It's the most realistic (this is a scenario), and adds an entirely new dimension to the action.  More targets=more to do, and the GVers have to change the strategy to include air defense.  My tankers like to use Wirbels too.  I think there should be more GV slots also.  The tank battles so far have been epic & very fun, but the limited GV numbers hamper the battles that could be attained.  Yes, this is primarily a flying game, but if a scenario is going to have a GV side, it deserves to go all out just like the flying side of the battle.  I would say that next scenario that has GVs, double the GV slots and see how much they fill, as an experiment.  As long as the air slots fill up as normal, what would having a kick-ass big battle on the ground also hurt?  More fun for everyone IMO.  Larger GV battles that supply plenty of targets for the air boys.

Out.

+1 to all of this.

This is my first scenario as a GV'er, and I'm blown away. Never cared much for the ground war in the MA's, but this is something entirely different- and teamwork is what makes it so. Not just just teamwork amongst us on the ground, but teamwork with friendly air assets also.

Air/ground combined action is the most immersive thing I have experienced in scenarios thus far. The only "limiting" moments have come when the restrictions come into play. Not mentioning any specifics, but with too many rules about who can engage what and when, it starts to become more tedious than immersive.

As long as GV's are allowed to allocate some of their units to AA defense units, and as long as deaths due to air attack do not count as "lives", I see no reason why the current model of air to ground integration cannot continue to work. In fact, I see no reason why current restrictions cannot be removed for future events.

At any rate, I think the worst things for future scenarios would be either complete lack of ground war in scenarios where it is feasible, or an isolated ground war with no air involvement.

[batch]

trotter since this is your first you havent seen some of the past issues.......

as an example take Tunisia......... I was in a panzer for the scenario........ I never lost a life to another tank........ and in fact in 1 frame I never even saw another tank.....and its not because Im just that good...     reason....

drive for 20 minutes to get in position and wait for the GV battle to begin........ in flys a squadron of attack planes and eggs us all............ sit in tower for 5 minutes............

drive for 20 minutes to get in position and wait for the GV battle to begin again........ in flys a squadron of attack planes and eggs us all......... sit in tower for 5 minutes............

you see where this is going?

thats why theres specific rules and fine lines....... because the number of GVs are limited to begin with........ and its so easy to drop a bomb on a GV.... it can really make for a boring and unenjoyable event if you never get to actually fight anyone in a GV....... which is the main intent to create a ground battle

I am glad however that you enjoyed your first time ........ and you have 3 more frames to enjoy in the current scenario......... they can be quite a bit of fun if it actually goes off like it should

[Brooke]

  My opinion at this time is that in scenarios such as this, with pilots getting two lives, and deaths in GVs from the air not counting against the GVer's life count, that it should be open season on GVs by any plane in the air.  It's the most realistic (this is a scenario), and adds an entirely new dimension to the action.  More targets=more to do, and the GVers have to change the strategy to include air defense.  My tankers like to use Wirbels too.

We can have scenarios where any attack is OK and where we rotate people though GV's (like Stalin's Fourth, with no GV-specific slots in registration) -- that works OK.  But we can't fill GV slots with GV folks when there is much air attack allowed.

 I think there should be more GV slots also.  The tank battles so far have been epic & very fun, but the limited GV numbers hamper the battles that could be attained.  Yes, this is primarily a flying game, but if a scenario is going to have a GV side, it deserves to go all out just like the flying side of the battle.  I would say that next scenario that has GVs, double the GV slots and see how much they fill, as an experiment.  As long as the air slots fill up as normal, what would having a kick-ass big battle on the ground also hurt?  More fun for everyone IMO.  Larger GV battles that supply plenty of targets for the air boys.

We'd love more GV'ers to play, but we run into not being able to fill GV-specific registration slots at about 20-30 positions per side.

If we want more than that, we need to go to a registration style where there are no specific slots -- just N per side.  And out of that N, M of them are put into GV's.  But it can't be that those M folks are put in GV's and stay there whereas the rest fly the whole scenario, because chances are that a bunch of folks who prefer planes are in that mix and don't want to play if they get "stuck" in GV's the whole time.  That's how a lot of folks see it, and that's why we wanted to try GV-specific slots for people who *prefer* tanks and consider them primary rides.

So, we either go with everyone in one pile, and we rotate them through tank duty (which a lot of them are not all that serious about or skilled in), and any attack goes.  Or we make GV-specific spots for the tank enthusiasts -- try to do it for them -- but have fewer GV's and restrict air attack on the tanks.

The only issue with the latter is that it has been an enormously unpleasant chore to work out and implement air-attack limitations.  Me, I think I my preference is becoming either (1) no GV-specific slots, everyone in one pile, rotate, and no attack limitations or (2) GV-specific slots and no air attack at all (which is then not an enormous headache).

Anyway, a lot of folks very much liked Stalin's Fourth (such as me), and we will run it again if the terrain is redone to work with the current Aces High (a huge chore for a terrain person, unfortunately).  Some folks did very much like the ground action in Tunisia, but not everyone.  Some of the ground-battle AAR's there sounded like a lot of fun.  We'll see what folks think of Red Storm after frame 4.

[Have]

Stalin's Fourth put a lot of people (lots of pilots) in GV's.  Some pilots don't like that.  Some are OK with it (I had a blast, for example, and love that scenario -- and we will run Stalin's Fourth again if the terrain is available), but a player who strongly prefers planes is going to consider duty in GV's to be secondary and not be into it with as much seriousness and fervor as a true GV enthusiast would be.

In Stalin's Fourth I spent about half of the scenario in GVs guarding some "strategic" bridges. What that meant in practice was that we sat there in the bushes, shot the bridges down, waited until they reupped and shot them down again. About quarter of the scenario was spent in static AA-guns in the bases. Then we got a flight or two in a plane.

Result? Worst scenario experience ever.