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

[Fencer51]

There have been a few Scenarios in the past which had ground vehicles as part of the event.  Stalin's Fourth being the one I am familiar with.

Dawn of Battle back last Spring also had them.  We attempted to learn from that experience and modified the rules of Red Storm Krupp Steel to enhance the enjoyment of the ground combat element.

Without going into what happened today, it is obvious that the interface between air and ground continues to be a problem in scenarios.

The CM scenario team is open for suggestions on how best to integrate vehicles into scenarios.

Is it possible to do so with aircraft involved in the ground war in any form?  Does it need to be done so that capturing of bases is not part of the objectives.  Maybe a terrain object of some sort like a ridge or section of trees (palm not withstanding) are the objective.

I and the rest of the scenario CM team are open for your input.  There are several other scenarios in stages of design which we would like to have ground vehicles to be a part, in some a major part, of the event.  It is in everyone's best interest to maintain and increase the "vehicle player base" in these special events.

[Anaxogoras]

I had a few thoughts about this today.  I think most agree that we want to see gv action integrated with air combat action.  It wouldn't be fun for the two kinds of combat to be happening in hermetically sealed chambers where one cannot affect the other, and it also wouldn't represent the tactical realities of WW2 combat.  That said, it can be frustrating to get bombed again and again while in a gv.  The rule that deaths due to aircraft does not count toward the 4 allowed was a nice gesture, but might not be enough because gv play must be meaningful: your success or failure must be somewhat equivalent to effort and skill.  Attack aircraft void that equation. 

Maybe someone has already suggested it, but in a scenario similar to this:

1) Provide each side with a maximum quota of ordinance, and let the CO's decide how to use it.  For example, side X gets 100,000kg of ordinance for a frame, to be split among units however they see fit.

2) Remove any restrictions on who can attack what.  The current rule is going to be a nightmare to regulate.

With a finite amount of ordnance, each side would have to balance how much they use to destroy stationary targets and how much they use to destroy gv's.  Accomplishing the first goal would place a leash on aircraft interference with gv battles, while still allowing interaction between them.  CM's could manipulate how ordnance is used through the assignment of point values to stationary target destruction vs gv's.

[batch]

while I would agree that limiting ords might possibly be a good suggestion and I do like the idea.....

I dont think it would be possible

Im not sure if you could tell from the logs specifically several things:

how much ord a plane lifted with
how much ord a plane dropped
how much ord a plane landed with
etc.......

further theres no way to limit or control that..... so even a sides limit had been reached....... theres no way to stop them from lifting more....... and youd have know way of knowing that they did

but very good thought none the less

[Anaxogoras]

while I would agree that limiting ords might possibly be a good suggestion and I do like the idea.....

I dont think it would be possible

Im not sure if you could tell from the logs specifically several things:

how much ord a plane lifted with
how much ord a plane dropped
how much ord a plane landed with
etc.......

further theres no way to limit or control that..... so even a sides limit had been reached....... theres no way to stop them from lifting more....... and youd have know way of knowing that they did

but very good thought none the less

Actually, you can tell from the logs how much ord a plane upped with.  How much the plane dropped wouldn't matter, but how much it returned with would.  That is a hole, good point.

[batch]

the other point of course would be if you had aircraft that were dual purpose such as say a 190 or something that was halfway on their way to a strat when they encountered enemy fighters............ the immediate reaction if engaged would be to drop all ord in order to defend your life

this would seriously negate alot of operations

[Anaxogoras]

the other point of course would be if you had aircraft that were dual purpose such as say a 190 or something that was halfway on their way to a strat when they encountered enemy fighters............ the immediate reaction if engaged would be to drop all ord in order to defend your life

this would seriously negate alot of operations

That's war buddy.

[batch]

That's war buddy.

Im sorry......... do wars have a written set of rules that have to be adhered to? .... its a scenario buddy

[Anaxogoras]

Im sorry......... do wars have a written set of rules that have to be adhered to? .... its a scenario buddy

Oh come on, you need to read me with a lighter heart than that.  I'm very surprised to see you take my post that way.

The point is to find a solution for GV's being incorporated into the action, and the only way to make it fun is for some kind of restriction to be placed on attack/bomber aircraft.

So, back to your point about having to jettison ords because of enemy fighters.  Do you really see that as being a problem that players would be unable to adapt to?  Remember, it wouldn't necessarily mean they couldn't go back with more ord to destroy their target later, but it might mean less gv killing.

[batch]

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

[OOZ662]

Maybe a better way to approach this is asking "why did Stalin's Fourth work while these last few haven't" instead.

Wish I had a copy of the S4 rules so that I could refresh myself.

[fudgums]

Maybe a better way to approach this is asking "why did Stalin's Fourth work while these last few haven't" instead.

Wish I had a copy of the S4 rules so that I could refresh myself.

http://www.electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/stalins_fourth/rules/main.htm

[Brooke]

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.

What we tried to do with Tunisia is make a portion of the scenario tailored and dedicated to the GV'er -- to folks for whom tanks are a primary or major interest.

So, we wanted some air/ground interaction (as that did happen in real life), but we did already know that lots of bombing of GV's would cause GV'ers not to want to participate.  So, we tried some middle ground:  restricting Ju 88's to level bombing and having deaths to air attack not count for the ground folks.

What we found is that a portion of GV'ers still felt that there was too much bombing going on.

As a result, for Red Storm, we cut it down still further, restricting ground attack only to one squadron of Il-2's and one squadron of FW 190F-8's.  I will go into more detail about that tomorrow and move on to what my suggestions are and why I have those suggestions.

[OOZ662]

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.

With the way Stalin's Fourth was set up, that didn't seem to be too big of an issue. Since each and every squadron had a ground element and an air unit, people that were too off-put by GV work could be reassigned (even as far as going to another channel, if not just in support of the rest of the squadron) for some air work. I think a lot of the time many "pilots" went into the ground war feeling a bit uneasy and anticipating the worst, but really got into it when surrounded by those of us that take it seriously, could protect them, and let them experience the battle without just getting popped by some other tanker every time they approached the base (as they expected from MA).

[SIK1]

Is there any way to set it up so that GV icons aren't visible from the air, but are from the ground?

[OOZ662]

You cannot turn on G2G icons, and A2A and A2G icons are limited to being either 6K or 3K. As of the last time I looked, and I haven't seen it changed.