Idea for next Scenario

[TheBug]

I was wondering if the developers of the next large scenario might consider adding the desire to do GV ops to the registration page.  Make it possible so people could volunteer to drive GVs when needed, and allow the people that have absolutely no interest in driving a tank, or especially a halftrack the chance to select only aircraft as a ride.  The foundation of this game is aircombat after all.

Now if the response would be, "Well we just wouldn't have enough people in GVs".  I guess I really have to question the need to even include GV ops.

Without the knowledge that I will only be flying planes for the next Scenario, I will not even register.  I feel bad not showing up in the current one, but after having registered for fighters first and Jabo second.  Being assigned to a GV, is a complete waste of my precious freetime, and in my mind worthy of breaking my commitment.


Just thought I would throw my thoughts out, I may be in the minority.  But I do intend them only as constructive criticism, I hope it it is taken that way.

[ROC]

Noted

[Drano]

I hear ya Bug and I gotta be honest in telling you I figured this would be a problem with a lot of folks too. I didn't start figuring on that at all really until I really started to get myself acquainted with the intent of the design. Prior to doing that I just figured on another air-based event like all the others I've been in for years. The design of this particular event pretty much steers you into using a lot of vehicles unlike just about any other I've ever been a part of. At least none on a scale like this. Its unavoidable(although I'm quite sure my opposition would like me to do just that). But I have done everything I could to keep things rotating so that everyone involved on my side got time in the air as well as the ground.

But it is a scenario. Personally, I've always looked forward to them as a means of broadening my horizons and taking a ride I wouldn't normally take outside of one of these events. Regardless of what you're in its all mission based anyway. The challenge is in using what you have in order to complete your mission and win the day for your side.

Its been said that one man's meat is another man's poison, but I would say in this case you're missing out on a really good time. That is unless you're on the axis side in which case I'm guessing you've prolly had better times. ; )

The door's always open if you want to come along with us.

Drano

[TheBug]

I didn't formulate my opinion without ever actually giving GVs a chance in AH events.  I have tried them in both the Kurland Scenario and a couple Snapshots.  In fact I even gave them a try again in today's frame.  Everytime the experience has either spanned from utterly boring to utterly retarded(in my opinion of course.)   Today falling into the completely boring part.  I got to shoot at a tent, yipee! And then drive for a hour and a half.  Felt more like a truck driving sim.

I understand that it adds a different element to the game for some people and would never expect GV ops to be done away with in AH scenarios.  But I personally hate them and would be willing to have only one life each frame as long as it was in a plane.  All I am asking for is that chance.


One thing I do find funny is how many of the event representatives refer to the rotating of GVs and planes as being "fair".   Don't ya think the wording of that is telling ya something right there.

Big to the guys that make these events possible, I am grateful for the efforts they put forth.  Just really hate GV ops and would think it wouldn't be too difficult to accomodate the people that share that opinion.

Thank you for the replies!

[ramzey]

I'm with you Bug, you are not alone

If i would know im going to drive 3 hour each week m3 i will never sign up for scenario.
I belive many who quit during frame after 30+ minutes driving gv's agree with me, its waste of our time and effort

[Brooke]

I liked the GV part, but it is a totally different activity than flying, of course.  The part I liked was the coordination aspect.

At any rate, what I've been thinking for some time is that it would be interesting if we could have the following in Aces High.

All of us like flying, but some don't want to be in ground vehicles or be gunners.  However, there are plenty of people in the world who love ground vehicles and would have fun even just being a gunner.  Look at WWIIOL, for example.  The majority of that game is like our ground-vehicle action in Stalin's Fourth.  Actually, in my opinion, the ground-vehicle action in Stalin's Fourth was even a lot MORE fun than that WWIIOL.  This might seem astonishing to people who don't like GV's, but there are folks out there (myself included) who like more-realistic ground action, even if it means you are driving for a long time and if the fighting is brief.

The problem is that people who pay $15/month for Aces High generally want aircraft.  People who pay $15/month for WWIIOL and who like ground action won't pay an additional $15/month for Aces High as ground action isn't that enormous a part of Aces High usually, and even if it were a great part of every scenario, scenarios don't happen frequently enough for a GV person to keep paying $15/month.

What I'd like to see is tiered accounts in Aces High.  $15/month ongoing gives you access to everything, like what we have now.  A lesser one-time fee would get you access to GV's or ships for two months (enough to cover one scenario), but no aircraft -- or maybe a lesser ongoing fee would give you access to GV's and ships on an ongoing basis.  And it would be free for anyone who wants to come in and be a gunner, but free access wouldn't allow you to drive a GV, ship, or pilot a plane.

This is something that wouldn't happen quickly or perhaps at all.  But if it did, it would give AH a bunch of players in GV's, ships, and maybe even a bunch of available gunners, which I think would enhance scenarios and the game overall.

Also, I've thought for some time that non-flying, non-driving command positions in Aces High would be an interesting way to get war gamers in who could enjoy the game from the point of view of battle strategy -- only instead of inanimate pieces, the units are real people.

[TexMurphy]

Personally I do think GVs do give the scenario a depth.

Stalins Fourth wouldnt have been as great as it was w/o GVs.

That said I do think there has to be the option to register for "air only".

Personally when I fly a scenario I immerse my self into the role of a combat pilot who is part of a squadron that chip in their little bit of effort into the grand scheme of things. When assigned to a GV role it totally messes up the immersion. How on earth did that fighter pilot end up driving a tank?

I do the assignment though as team play is extreamly important to me so I dont let the team down due to my ego. But Im not happy about doing it partially because of the immersion but partially because Im totally useless in a tank, my mom would do a equaly good job in a GV.

I know there are peeps who love GVs and that there are people who love doing a bit of bouth. I definatly think the overall experience would be better if the ammount of GV activity planed for a scenario would be based on how the group that can see em self in a GV.

As I said in the begining the Stalins Fourth scenario wouldnt have been as fun without the GVs. But I know I would have hated beeing put into a T34 for 3 hours straight.

Tex

[Tilt]

GV's naturally pull the combat to near ground level.

They remove the Alt warrior experience when limited to Fighter V Fighter experience.

The problem is always one of balance. Its not easy to solve, weapon sets spawn points, terrain geography and terrain hardnesses all have to merge to provide this balance along with gameplay rules and attrition values.

Infact WWII did not have many battles where air power was the deciding factor and even fewer where it was the sole point of the conflict. Certainly no Eastern Front scenario could be run (properly) without considering the conflict on the ground or at least the interface between airborne and ground based resources.

It would be neat if we could launch "drone" vehicles to do battle with each other whilst players get on with the air war. However thats (presently) not possible and even then many of us will be bombing and shooting up enemy drone vehicles to facilitate victory.

Whether in the air or the ground we can some times end up "chasing the action" and never finding it. Its not limited to ground vehicles ........... air born strategms may often require that units are not engaged as quickly as the players may ideally have hoped.

Some poor defences (or useless attacks) may find folk attacking nothing but objects, this is unfortunate.

This may be boring but it is not  the fault of the vehicle/aircraft.

I do not remember any comments from the folk trying to capture 57/58 about it being boring.(origin base was 2 hops away)

When 58 fell there was much mutual back slapping on range and mission channels .............much as there may have been cursing for the other side...........emotions were running high!

I do remember seeing folk spawning/travelling halfway across a map to find out the battle at 72 was already over. This can be soul destroying but its much the same as calling 12 group Spitfires to help over Portsmouth in the BOB...............they get there too late, they are low on fuel and can only rtb.

[jordi]

Every scenario is going to have the HOT Rides and the less desireable rides - be it Air or GV or Support like C47's . . .

To me the best Scenario players are those willing to help out in any area even if the ride they got put in was not thier best.

Pearl is a good example of a scenario design where those that just want to fly fighters and not dive bombers or torpedo bombers can sign up for just the ZEKE group and fly for the IJN for every frame.

But that accounts for just 20-30% of the total number of pilots needed.

You still need pilots to man the other 70-80 of the planes to round ount the scenario. Those pilots willing to put the time and effort into making the other rides work and get the assigned jobs are just as important. Even more so to me. You can get a hot fighter jock to fly - but get a guy to spend hours coming up with the right technique to get in and drop a torp and get out alive is equally as valuable.

I had several GL's tell me that GV's were not thier squads strong suits. But almost everyone of them said they would do thier best no matter what they were assigned to.

I had to disaapoint one GL in frame #4. He thought it was his squads turn to start in the air since they were in GV's most of the previous frame. Due to the fact that we had to recapture the same fields he captured before I felt our best chance was to keep his unit on the ground at the start of the frame and have his group do it again - because they did it so WELL the last time.

The great comment I got from the GL was that even though they wanted to fly he would rather do the job and make sure it got done right even if it meant some of his pilots stayed in gv's the whole frame to help defend the bases they captured he would rather do that than fly and lose that base.

[TheBug]

Stop equating people that wish to not ride GVs around as being against mission oriented gameplay.  In fact I am somewhat offended Jordi by your repeated refferal to these people as "hot fighter jock" or "MA fighter jock".
That is total BS and I am certain that most participants of the Squad Ops, where there isn't GV ops, would find your summations off base.

The squadron that I fly in which has it origins traced back over 10yrs has always based it's foundation upon event flying.  Whether it was the Scenario Lites/Target for Tonight/S3s of Warbirds or the Snapshots and Squad Ops of Aces High, events have been our foundation.  To be referred to as a "MA fighter jock" is total BS, our squad has no organized time in the MA and I for one NEVER go into the MA.  Your basis that a person's willingness to drive around in a GV is equated to their willingness to perform mission orientated duties makes you sound like a fool.   Keep the GVs, according to some of ya they are a great hit, I'm all for letting people enjoy what they enjoy.  But the scenarios of AH as of late have become over-burdened with rules and GV ops imo.  With the state of GV ops in AH and the tactics implemented that to me has the biggest MA feel about the scenario.  What's your basis of comparison?

As for ground ops in WWII, basing it upon the way the war was fought is just silly compared to what immersion there is within the game.  Not to mention the fact that although ground forces were needed to secure objectives name me one sustained, successful offensive operation in WWII that didn't involve having air superiority if not supremacy.

I really don't feel that GV ops are necessary to produce mission orientated goals within a scenario, if that was the case you better warn the Squad Ops guys or better yet warn HTC about Combat Tour.  I think with a little creativeness on the CMs part the ground war can be implied and left to a scale that supports the player base interested in it.  I'd be glad to help if need be.

I am at a loss as to why allowing people to select only planes and no GVs is such a hard pill to swallow.  It makes me question who's agenda you guys are actually serving, your own or the community.  I'm thinking if it was the community none of this would sound so threatening.

I am probably going to regret making this post but I felt compelled to at least rebuke some of the statements made.  But I intend most of my post to be a debate with all intentions of improving AH scenarios and all individuals for their efforts in making AH scenarios happen.  And although I have great respect for Jordi and his excellent and I'm sure frustrating job as the Allied CO I chose to disagree with some of his comments.  As a final note I was sincere in my offer to help in future events if needed as would many in my squad.

[jordi]

We all will never agree 100% on what is the best way to setup / run a sceanrio.

I did not mean to ruffle anyones feathers. It seems from my past experience that what I would call the "HOT" rides go first. P51's / FW's or 109's in a Euro Bomber Scenaro, Spits and 109's in a BoB scenario, USN Fighters in a PAC Scenario . . . The non-hot rides get filled last.

Personally if we wanted a very highly attended scenario it would have to be fighter vs fighter. We would have to beat people away with a stick ! But then I SUCK in fighters .

The way the "Fighter jocks" handle those planes put me in awe. I know my limitations and that is why I refer to them as "HOTSHOTS" and "JOCKS" - because they are that much better than me ! I did not mean for it to come across as a put down or an insult but as a term of respect.

The reality is that there are never enough rides in the planes most people want to fly - someone has to fly those other planes set for the scenario.

As I stepped neck deep into this current scenario I knew it would be a difficult time balancing the wants and needs of the registered pilots. I KNEW those that would be flying the fighters in each frame would hold  thier own. I knew they would do a good job because that is what they are good at !

I have seen in some scenarios where some people just would not fly anything except plane XYZ. The good thing is most if not all of the pilots on our side were willing to help out the overall cause.

Like I mentioned - Some groups told me up front thier pilots were not good GV Drivers. But all in all they held thier own both on the ground and in the air.

but all in all I give a HEARTY to all who participate in any scenario.

[jordi]

As a basis for scenario discussion . ..

Could we create a Fighter only scenario ?

What would determine winning or losing ?

BoB comes the closest. But you still need people in bombers / Stuka's ?

[TheBug]

Plane a Plane any Plane.  I don't care if it's a bomber, fighter-bomber or fighter.  Just not a GV, willing to do whatever is needed in a scenario knowing beforehand that it will be a plane.

Secondly if ya want to shed the MA feel, point your guns at the people that think multiple lives is a good thing.

And lastly I don't judge value of an event upon it's attendance.

[jordi]

You see that is the thing . Some say they want FIGHTERS ONLY, others say ( Like you ) ANY PLANE will do ( Which as a CO i really appreciate ! ) , other say they are only good at Bombers . . .

The problem is you do not know how many of each type are going to show up - so how do make the plane set ?

Now one could ask people to register for a scenario and select PALNE Only or Any plane or Plane and GV or Gunner ( plane or veh or ship ) . . .

Then design the scenario around the expected attendence ?

[TheBug]

I think a choice not to be in a GV in a flight sim scenario isn't too much of a stretch.  Beyond that people sign up under the premise that they will be placed according to their preferences but nothing guaranteed.  

Don't you think you're carrying it a bit overboard?  It isn't like scenarios were invented by this one.

Just critique this idea alone-- Same sign-up as last scenario but an option for individuals to check a box selecting no GVs at the cost of being allowed only one life.  Would it really cause anymore fuss than your imagination concocts?


Convoy sunk bringing in supplies to Tobruk--Germans able to penetrate defenses.

Train or supply base or bridge not taken out--Panzer Divisions allowed to counterattack Normandy beachheads push troops back around Caen.

Or play both those back with the Allies being successful and allowing their lines to advance.

I think putting that imagination to better use would make for a much more immersive mission orientated scenario, than 25+ vehicles racing around trying to be the one to blow up a tent.

Don't ya think?