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

[OOZ662]

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.

The bridges were a bit of a design flaw as I don't think that had been tried before, and a lesson has been learned there. "Tisk tisk" to whoever gave you that order and didn't "rotate the watch," too.

[thorsim]

i know i am new, but it seems to me the problem was a result of objective overlapping.
if i may i would suggest letting the air to air assets work one set of objectives and let the air to ground work against another.

you could move the tanks into say an open field campaign outside any dar coverage the strategic bombers and air superiority fighters would work the towns and supply lines and the tactical bombers and tank destroyers would be scouting the open spaces for the enemy armor bridges roads etc.

if the armor was moving on a town then the number of times and time of frame could be restricted for strategic operations on that target.this could all be enforced by a negative feedback scoring.

i.e. a strategic bomb damaging a enemy tank would result in the bombers team loosing points.  so even if the tank gets it in a foul he will have done some good for his team.  conversely the bomber that is not assigned tank busting would need to look at every tank as a FF situation.     

this would add to the pressure to hit our strategic targets quickly.  i.e.

"get the town before the enemy tanks get there !!!"   

btw i know i am not exactly using the terms strategic and tactical correctly but for my purposes in this post tactical can be thought of as anti-armor and strategic can be thought of as anti fixed non transportation assets.

anyway just thinking about the problem. 

 

[thorsim]

didn't mean to shut everybody up ...

 

+S+

t

[K-KEN]

I had an Idea that we could do a recreation of the landing at Normandy.

4 Frames.
Frames 1 and 2 maybe, the allied manning CV guns, manning LVT's with cannons, troops and supplies. The Axis having Shore Batteries, M3's, M-16s to defend.
This means nearly everyone in GVs and Manned guns and maybe a few C-47's with supplies and troops to go inland.

A terrain must be set to have many many shore guns set up and the beach head would be made up of many map rooms requiring 50 or so troops. Gold, Juno, etc.

Frame 3 and 4 could also switch sides and do it again or some sort of Air Only campaign or a mixture.

Stalin's 4th did a great job of balancing this, as I recall.

I posted this over a year ago, I think.

[oneway]

Maybe your asking the wrong question...

Maybe the question should start with the premise that the challenge is to put more planes in a GV scenario...

I don't think you can find a happy middle ground...at least not yet.

Decide whether its GV centric or Aircraft centric and then work forward from there.

GV centric Scenarios should use limited amounts of aircraft, based far from the front line, in early war planes...

Perhaps base capture in such a scenario should use only C47 for troops, and the early war plane set has a goal not to kill GV, but clear the skies and get the Goon in...

Scenarios are understandably aircraft driven seeing as this is an aircraft sim and the community is 85%+ all about airplanes...

I think the guys on the ground need a bone or two...I think they need their 'days' in the sun...

Brooke Said: "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."

I think you all might be surprised with the turn out of an ALL GV scenario...The Sands of Tunisia...The Battle of the Bulge...there are enough talented and committed GV guys to design this and offer it up for review...

Start the design from the ground up...excuse the obvious pun...then find a way to bring the planes into the design to enhance a ground based design...

Not the other way around...

Shift the perspective if you want a different outcome...

Oneway

[Serenity]

but actually that is the point.......... they may not be able to go to their targets later with more ord............ they reached the ord limit...........


imagine this for example........... 1 hour left in scenario.............. thanks for your help bombers...... you can log off now......... we are out of bombs.............

also what about rearms...... if an aircraft took off with ordinance it will get all that ordinance back when it rearms......... even if ord is disabled for the field......... so now you have to turn off all rearm ability as well


not trashing the idea......... like I said it makes a good argument........ and would be an effective way to limit bombing GVs........ unfortunately IMO (one of the GVs who doesnt like getting bombed) there are too many uncontrollable variables and side effects

That actually sounds good to me. Force commanders to plan ahead. Those 190s don't NEED to be carrying ords. Throw ordenance-laden fighter-bombers into a fighter trap, you deserve to get what comes to you!