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

[Brooke]

Another aspect that has been brought up in this topic is quitting because of CM decisions.

By the time CM's decide on an issue, we have already thought it over as best we can and are doing what we think is correct.  Again, we understand that whether we pick A or B, there will be others who are convinced that the opposite is correct.  However, even though it's not a perfect process, going with what we believe is correct is the very best that we can manage.  We especially cannot say, "Well, doing A is what we think is correct, but because a person is threatening to quit, we'll do what we think is wrong so that he'll stay."

For this reason, all that is accomplished by quitting is to punish one's own team mates.  It is similar to being angry with the referee or organizer of a game, quitting, and leaving the rest of the team short handed.  Players in adult sports know those ramifications.  Scenarios are no less a team activity, where the team relies on its players.  It is particularly harmful to a side when the person quitting is an important player, such as a GL.

A CO needs to rely on GL's to be there, to participate, to help recruit, to run their groups in battle, and to stick with it even if the going is tough.  Thus, while CO's are prefectly free to pick whom they desire in key roles, CO's tend not to pick from people who in the past got upset and quit.

Anyway, I am not posting the above to cause more arguments.  I don't want to debate anyone in an effort to change his or her mind about any of the above.  I just wanted to give my view on what such things do and what such things don't do.

[kansas2]

Also - pintle gun?  Moray, you were driven from your GV because you lost your pintle gun?  So what?  What were you expecting you would do with it that was frustrated by that dasturdly Yak pilot?

Yes that is just a small infraction, but that is after being bombed "marked" another small infraction and the discrepancy in too many lives and it all adds up to a lot of frustration. But as "Tony" would say.... "what you gonna do".

[sethipus]

Thanks for sticking it out, Kansas2.  It was fun fighting against you guys, and I'm glad you stayed with it and gave it your best shot.

[K-KEN]

I will echo Broke on the "quitting" and "Blaming Command" issues as childish ranting. We can disagree, but this went way overboard. I didn't agree on the call, but it was made and that's it. The Axis and Axis Command was put into a rather precarious position and adjustments had to be made. Nuff Said. That part is done and it should be a dead horse. Don't continue to beat it.

To the topic and a bit more,
I made a post and latter observation that the numbers of bombers and GVs should be equal. Allied get 24 bombers, Axis get 24. 1 or 2 lives each. (that is a period on the end) Either you fill the positions or you don't, recruit.

Also, IMO, and I'll use Frames 3 & 4. The setup is A31 (V31) is the AXIS Objective. It's a small airfield. The Allies had a mix, V23 a real V Base, and A34 and A68 small airfields. There should have been NO Aircraft in that area. <nother period there> No Air Cover, No Attack Aircraft of any kind. Let me finish. These should have been treated like a "Tank Town" and no planes allowed. - Even as spotters.
I continue. The battlefield is then decided by equal numbers of tanks and supply vehicles. If your hangars are down, too bad. Maybe it's that way for the whole frame too. If captured, you can't and don't get it back either. (that's a maybe - but resets next frame)
In this case, a FAC can call a bomber strike on an "Objective" airfield's town only. Level Bombers Only. The F8s and IL2s can mop up buildings only to effect the capture. GVs killed by a 10K level bomber dropping into a town - yer dead pal and no one can complain. Any GV outside of the town "pad" may not be killed by bombs. <again-a period> It means a stray egg might cause a death but it's not a life-and may sway a capture. Remembering the wind might have influenced it and therefore if that is a wind-drift kill, then it should stand. I venture to say, a 2 bldg distance might be observed from the towns edge ... longer, then it's not a life or kill, but tragic. (I might amend that but just a guide)

I know the design was meant to have attack aircraft, let them attack and clean up for the bombers on towns and strats. Maybe also include all active airbases as a suitable bomber/attack aircraft target as well. This gives the bombers more opportunity to go undetected NOE, or in at high altitudes with Fighter and attack craft in tow. It might increase the time the players have in their rides, allow them all to live to the end of the event, etc, etc, etc.
If it's a points thing, then lets even up the GVs and Bomber numbers for both sides. (attendance not-with-standing)

Hope I didn't ramble too much. Certainly food for thought and I may have overlooked or misread this post's intentions.

[MORAY37]

"This scenario sucks, and I'm going to do everything I can to make sure I'm right."

Also - pintle gun?  Moray, you were driven from your GV because you lost your pintle gun?  So what?  What were you expecting you would do with it that was frustrated by that dasturdly Yak pilot?

The first frame of the scenario sucked.  I'm not the only one who thought so, on the ground as Axis tanker. Four and a half minutes into the frame, there were 18 IL2's hovering over us. Great design.

 It's my time and afternoon, so I will do with it as I see fit.  I did not quit, I wanted to have fun and help those who I knew were "just sticking it out" on the ground.  I moved to 190F8's and proceeded to have the most Air to Ground kills out of anyone in the scenario.

The pintle gun was the straw.  I did not sign up to circle under constant air attack, as a repeat of Tunisia by extension of the MA.  This is what I was told the rules would be, and is not what they were in practice.  And, until someone can make a scenario that is GV centric, built around the reasons why there were tank vs tank battles in the first place, you will not find me in another tank in a scenario again.  Period.

I tried it twice and both times were horrible.  The last time (Tunisia) I "stuck it out" and didn't even want to log in for the scenario after the 2nd frame.  I didn't make the same mistake here, and ended up having a great time with a great bunch of guys in the F-8's. 

[oneway]

 Every scenario has had and will always have it's arguments that challenge teamwork to exist.  Those who overcome these challenges and come together to work as a team are usually the victors in both the fun and strategical factors.  Without teamwork, you've already lost, regardless of what the outcome is via points.

Correct.

There is no question to any competent analyst that the Axis had a bit tougher of a road to hoe...that was crystal clear in the early/initial rule releases...however, none of the challenges they faced were insurmountable due to the 'design'.

There was simply little if any margin for error at any level for the Axis in the broader perspective.

The Allies simply took somewhat favorable circumstance, and leveraged that with a better than an 'average' plan...

Its nothing more than that...

The designers of the Scenarios are as much a part of the game as each of us...it would be wise to recognize that, appreciate the work they do, and constructively exchange ideas and information to make the next design better...

Oneway

[Brooke]

The pintle gun was the straw.

The low-level logs track every bullet fired and every bullet hit.  The low-level logs for frame 1 show you being hit only by GV's and Il-2's.  There are no "bad guy damage" lines on you from any Yak (or A-20, La-5, La-7, or B-25).

If you were hit by a Yak, then HTC's low-level log code possibly has a bug that we should report.  If your film shows you getting hit by a Yak in frame 1, can you send the relevant snippet to me so that I can take a look to verify and then send to HTC along with the relevant portion of the low-level log?

My e-mail address is brooke "at" electraforge.com

[sethipus]

Well, fortunately for the Axis, I think that first frame was probably the only one where they had IL-2s really doing much to them.  Most of this scenario is was really good tank on tank fighting, the way God meant it to be.   

[USCH]

I love it when people get fed the truth.... can wait for the responce....

[Fencer51]

Couple clarifications of some posts above.

There were 14 Axis GVers in frame 1, not the full 20.

The numbers were as follows;
       Soviet    German
F1     14           14
F2     10           12
F3     20           12
F4     14           8

Also in Frame 1 the base was captured at 43 minutes +/- into the frame not 21 minutes.

Thanks to both sides for their participation, but especially to those on the Axis side who remained and those who stepped up to command positions.

[5PointOh]

I pulled this from a thread in the GF:

 Base captures and short drives to targets are in my eyes is the major issue with Scenerios with GVs.  I, myself thought the interaction between planes and GVs was right for RS/KS (as long as each side sticks to the rules)

In all fairness the pilots have to fly 30-40min before they see some action.  Why shouldn't GVs? Perhaps instead of a base capture, the GVs goal is to defend/destroy a strat target. Once the new AH strat system is in place this maybe more possible.

Picture this:

An arty factory burried deep in a city, each side has a spawn on the opposite side of the city, both maybe 20min drive from the strat.  One side is tasked with destroying the factory for 25-30 points. Once the factory is reduced to zero then the points are awarded. Then onto the next strat target.  (Perhaps an order of destruction). If the other side keep the strat intact through the frame they are awarded the points. 

Thats a very rough idea of what I'd like to see.  Still writing notes down as I think of things.
 

[K-KEN]

I looked back at my earlier suggestion on a Normandy Invasion Scenario. http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,237822.0.html

There are a significant number of GV "only" rides in this idea. A few C47's to drop troops behind the front and maybe even a few with the "dead stick" option of landing troops and supps (jeeps etc) that act as gliders.
I still think this is a viable Scenario and I would enjoy being a German SB Gunner or LVT driver! Flying 20+ C47s inland at night would be cool. Incorporating a night time element would also be a hoot for the early hours of the invasion.

The question came up in the original post about the AXIS being asleep and not responding immediately. Well, that's a "Disable" option for some guns or defensive measures that could be "Enabled" after the start. Or just instead of Go Go Go the CM could announce...... "OPEN FIRE"   

I'd think this would be a great GV opportunity.

[sethipus]

Ken, that sounds pretty cool.

[Sloehand]

Its not the rule writeup, its your assumption on the difference between the tiger and the firefly(not M4). The firefly proved that it could fight the tiger from long range or short range. The matchup of the firefly and the tiger was equal in DoB. As the tiger was being killed by shots from longer than 3k(could've been longer).

I call bulls*** on this.  I was there for DoB.  I'm a Sherman driver by preference, and frankly one of the better shots in the game, and I know where the kill spots are.  I couldn't kill a Tiger at over 2.5K no matter how hard I tried, even a perfect beam shot on tread trim.  Had unbelievable trouble with one Tiger, hitting him THREE TIMES with exactly a 2K shot, top down on his turret top from elevation above him (about 400-500m. elev.) All three hits would be normally be kill shots in the MA.  Didn't smoke him, hurt him or stop him.  Most memorable moment in the whole scernario.  That and being killed by Moray in his tiger from 5K, shooting up at us sitting on our base.  The strange and unusual inability to kill Tigers with normal mid-range hits was second most frequent topic for Allied tankers.

Never heard any Allied tanker claim a 3K kill on a Tiger with a Sherman, though there might have been one I didn't hear about.

[MORAY37]

I call bulls*** on this.  I was there for DoB.  I'm a Sherman driver by preference, and frankly one of the better shots in the game, and I know where the kill spots are.  I couldn't kill a Tiger at over 2.5K no matter how hard I tried, even a perfect beam shot on tread trim.  Had unbelievable trouble with one Tiger, hitting him THREE TIMES with exactly a 2K shot, top down on his turret top from elevation above him (about 400-500m. elev.) All three hits would be normally be kill shots in the MA.  Didn't smoke him, hurt him or stop him.  Most memorable moment in the whole scernario.  That and being killed by Moray in his tiger from 5K, shooting up at us sitting on our base.  The strange and unusual inability to kill Tigers with normal mid-range hits was second most frequent topic for Allied tankers.

Never heard any Allied tanker claim a 3K kill on a Tiger with a Sherman, though there might have been one I didn't hear about.

Well, I never even knew I got a kill that far out, thanks. I remember lobbing them back at you ridge hoppers, but don't remember killing anyone.  

We lost at least two (I think 3, but don't know for sure) Tigers to long range rounds that came from your shermans in DOB.  I personally lost a turret and had to re-up, when we owned that base on Kasserine Pass.  Apparently, past 4K or so, you can't even see or hear the rounds unless they hit you (I can obviously attest to this).  One Tiger exploded 200 yards away from me, without ever seeing a single round on base for 10 mins.

I'll dig the film up for you if I still have it.