LVT Assault on V5 in Frame 2

[PFactorDave]

I intend to be constructive here.  We understand that designing these battles is far more complex than most people realize.

That said...

The design needs some work. 

The LVTs spawned too close to V5.  We were in M8 guns range when we spawned in.  We were too close.  There was no room to manuever before we were engaged. 

Suggest that in the future, the CV group be replaced with two CV groups.  One to the NorthEast side of V5 a little father from shore.  Far enough that we can set up an assault before we are under fire.  And a second group more SouthWest of the base.  Same thing, far enough out that there is an opportunity to manuever before being under fire.

If the LVTs had been given a chance to make it to shore, it might have been a fight.  The way it was set up, the LVTs were merely target practice for the M8s.  Heck, the M8s barely had to leave their hangar and they were firing on us.  At least make them use their speed advantage to gain a position to fire on the LVTs in the water!

EDIT to add:  Would love to hear some Axis M8 drivers perspective on this.  Also waiting to see the logs to learn what the Allied to Axis ratio was...

On another note...  I honestly think that the V5 battle score should be thrown out for this Frame.  As designed, it is my opinion that it was unwinnable for the Allies.

[ghostdancer]

Thanks for the feedback. Constructive criticism is always welcome and I knew that the whole amphibious assault ran the risk of being very rough.

Your ideas of two fleets position is a good one and if I do this again in the future will be tried. Also duly noted about the spawning of the LVTs. I wanted them to start in the water but obviously from your comments they still spawned to close to land.

Will review the logs and see how badly it went.

[TEXAS20]

It was target practice but the LVTs got some kills in. I agree the two CV idea would improve the LVTS chance of winning that set up. Maybe even spawn them farther north and south of the base for a two pronged attack. This would make the M8s have to run a top speed if they wanted to get to the landing beaches before the LVTs could make it ashore. You could even run a jabo mission in off the cv prior to or during the amphibious assault. Of course we would need WWs to defend . I do agree that y'all were in a bad spot.

 As far as throwing out the score.....BOO FREEKEN HOO ! I have taken a couple of butt whoopings in FSO and scenarios due to poor setup and loop sided #'s. Im sure it was not set up just to gain points for or mess with one side or the other. Take your whooping like a man! 

[shegotya]

  everyone!

Being CO or any part of FSO with gv's is always so much fun for me win or lose. Most who know me know gv's are "my thing" so I want to honestly say going into this I knew we would be dominating well, ok real honest, I knew we would win!  However, two things played a part in having a great fight ... 1.) Where the CV was positioned for the LVT's to spawn and 2.) How many more of them were there going to be so I was optimistic about a great fight. Unfortunately both those variables didn't help. Having one life and ending the battle so quickly was unfortunate (maybe more lives for underdogs with a down time between lives next time or group testing so the numbers could of been a little more in their favor which the HMS team would love to help test if FSO ever needs it ). Some people after the win did tower because of being told we had to wait to tower until T+50 and for us that was a long wait. I personally think the win should of been verified and then we could of towered. Unsure on the circumstances for that so I would love to hear the reason if any, we had to stay camped. As far as the points, I agree with TEXAS, running a GV event myself when you say your gonna do something you should try to honor it ... even if it means you didn't anticipate a way it would go ... even with the best of testing I speak from a monthly experience it is very easy to miss something or be shocked it didn't go the way you planned.

That being said <S> to all those running FSO, <S> to all those who participate and <S> to those who participated in the gv part that I asked to join up from the MA friendships we have made ... was really cool to see you guys in there!!

A special <S> to CHAPPY who always puts me in charge of the gv's and my squad who make me look like I know what I am doing!!

 
Michelle


Always a pleasure to help and run with all of you guys win or lose!

[CHAPPY]

Princess SHE 

[PFactorDave]

It was target practice but the LVTs got some kills in.

Five...  That's how many kills the LVTs got in.  There were 39 LVTs spawned, 27 M8s.  Kill ratio was 39-5. 

Imagine three squads spawning in fighters only to discover that there are wirbels sitting at the ends of the runway.  That's pretty much what it was like.

[CHAPPY]

Five...  That's how many kills the LVTs got in.  There were 39 LVTs spawned, 27 M8s.  Kill ratio was 39-5. 

Imagine three squads spawning in fighters only to discover that there are wirbels sitting at the ends of the runway.  That's pretty much what it was like.

How in the hell you guys get 39 LVTS? This was the orders I received about GV numbers.
Was there supposed to be more Allied Gvs than Axis?

"Btw that is the min for the GV battle .. one 16-21 squad. You can basically also add in an additional 4-6 squad if you want. Or any combination of squads that don't go over 27." from GD

[PFactorDave]

How in the hell you guys get 39 LVTS? This was the orders I received about GV numbers.
Was there supposed to be more Allied Gvs than Axis?

"Btw that is the min for the GV battle .. one 16-21 squad. You can basically also add in an additional 4-6 squad if you want. Or any combination of squads that don't go over 27." from GD

Yes, we were supposed to out number you.  Fat lot of good that did us.  We had 1 16-21 Squad, a 11-15 Squad, and a 4-6 Squad.

[CHAPPY]

WOW

was a slaughter.

[PFactorDave]

The purple box is where we spawned.  The yellow box would have been better (maybe move it a little closer in), we could have at least manuevered a bit.  But having two CVs that spawned into the green boxes would have been even better and given the LVTs some options and also forced the M8s to actually have to manuever to defend.

[ghostdancer]

Yes, I gave the allies a higher min and max than the Axis when it came to GVs to try to compensate for the fact that the M8s would be more mobile and faster on land. As you all say .. fat a lot of good that did. I have to rethink this type of GV battle completely.