Open Letter To AH Tankers - and others

[MORAY37]

Easy. Almost every armored battle in WW2 developed from weather grounding the opposition's air power.

[HB555]

If a scenario was presented that needed tankers, and there were no bombers, I would give it a try.

[Sloehand]

OK, a little more info.  As for the vehicles, we have what we have.  I hope some new tanks will come out, but it's not something I can influence or count on.

My interest, as many in the scenarios have learned, is tactics, both air and ground combined, but especially ground.  Further, I'd like to see a scenario setup that encourages more realistic small unit armored tactics, and tactical situations that present a variety of tactical solutions for both the attacker and defender, and more and different 'victory' objectives rather than just 'taking bases'.

All of this requires a little more creativity in structuring the rules to encourage all this, and I don't have all the solutions worked out perfectly, but I do have many ideas and plans to try out.  Most importantly, I more or less know what GV'ers like and don't like in what they've been given so far, and there are still more things to try.

As for the historical aspect, I thoroughly enjoy learning about the battles each scenario is patterned after.  However, until we have a good air-to-ground formula well understood, I'm less concerned with fashioning a histically accurate scenario than I am just a good GV action scenario.

This means the first couple of GV scenarios most probably will not have any correlation to any specific WWII battle, but that doesn't mean they won't further down the road.

Obviously, we have limitations in our terrain/movement setup and available vehicles, but a fun and intense GV scenario IMO is still very possible.

[fudgums]

I'll be there most likely.

[Brooke]

In Stalin's Forth, there was much GV action.  There were no dedicated spots for tankers -- GV positions were filled by assigning people from general registration to GV duty.  Many people (like me) greatly enjoyed Stalin's Fourth.  But there were many pilots who weren't as keen on it because they didn't prefer GV duty and felt that they got (in their words) "stuck" in GV's.

In Tunisia and Red Storm, the scenario team experimented with having dedicated GV spots specifically set aside for tankers -- to give them their own dedicated, important role -- and then see what GV'ers made of it.  Compared to the Main Arena and compared to past scenarios, both of these scenarios drastically cut back on what could be done from the air to GV's.  In both scenarios, death from air attack did not subtract at all from lives available to GV'ers, and GV'ers were given more lives than pilots to start with.  In Tunisia, in addition, various bombers were precluded from divebombing.  That did not seem to be enough restriction.  So, in Red Storm, we went close to a lower limit of interaction and precluded killing tanks by any aircraft except for one squadron on each side.

While both scenarios had many tankers who enjoyed the scenario, each one also had tankers who didn't at all like it.  Scenarios are like movies or types of food -- people have different preferences, and not everyone is going to like any given thing, no matter what it is.  The best you can do is when the large majority of people have a good time.  Now most players prefer aircraft.  So, having a scenario where 5-10 pilots don't like it out of 150-250 is still doing well.  But having a scenario where 5-10 GV'ers don't like it out of 20-30 is not where you want to be.

Going to approximately a lower limit on interaction between air and ground forces is not far enough for a portion of dedicated GV'ers.  Clearly, our experiments have indicated the solution:  either forget about having dedicated GV spots for GV'ers (like Stalin's Fourth) or totally eliminate interaction between air and ground forces.

So, that's what we'll likely do.  For scenarios that have a GV component, we'll either (a) have air-to-ground interaction, no dedicated GV spots, and players will get 2 lives in planes and 1 life in GV's (or some such) or (b) have dedicated GV spots but no interaction at all between air and ground forces.  (b) will generate it's share of complaints from some scenario players who will see it as too unrealistic, gamey, restricted, or scripted -- so (a) might be a better way to go, but we can all think about it.

I suppose an outside candidate (c) is to continue to do what we did in Red Storm and just work to grow the base of GV players who are fine with that (as they do exist).  If there are GV folks who feel that this (c) is better, feel free to say so.

[MORAY37]

So, in Red Storm, we went close to a lower limit of interaction and precluded killing tanks by any aircraft except for one squadron on each side.

Wrong.  From the rules:

Do not attack tanks or troop carriers (M3, SdKfz) unless you are specifically ordered to do so. Only particular planes are allowed to attack those vehicles.

From the Dictionary:

Main Entry: 1at·tack
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈtak\
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle French attaquer, from Old Italian *estaccare to attach, from stacca stake, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English staca
Date: 1562

transitive verb 1 : to set upon or work against forcefully
2 : to assail with unfriendly or bitter words
3 : to begin to affect or to act on injuriously <plants attacked by aphids>
4 : to set to work on <attack a problem>
5 : to threaten (a piece in chess) with immediate capture

At no point does the definition of "attack" include "success" or "kill".  Revisionist history in the making...like saying some people "quit" when they were fired.  

Marking with bombs.... strafing... all fit under the definition of "attack".  

I want to fix this problem too, but if you want to continually shift the reasoning, it won't get fixed.  In the future, add weather.  Eliminate the icon range for GV's.  Hell, make it more than 4 and a half minutes for one sides ground attackers to get to the field they're attacking.  That's a start. 

  You can have a mixed battlefield without making it uneven.  

[saantana]

bla

No, hes correct. Since one squad flies the same aircraft, his statement is in accordance to the rules you specified, even thought your interpretation might differ. Quoting the dictionary is just picking hairs. Personally I despise that tactic of voiding ones argument; this is not an english grammar class.

Sounds to me like sloehand wants another GV club in which he creates a sandbox from his own pocket of ideas and look at people playing them out. Whatever happened to the GV club which existed for exactly this purpose? And why were people so unhappy with Red Storm Krupp Steal? I thought it was a great scenario.

[saantana]

double post, argh I have to stop doing that.

[Hoffman]

I only played one frame of Red Storm and had to leave suddenly due to R/L issues.  But from what I did see, I hated every part of the GV battle.
And I love rolling around in tanks.

The Spawns were too close and virtually every advantage was given to the attacker.  There was little if any time to scout the terrain, establish defenses, and the fields of fire quite simply were absolute crap.

Taking bases was a matter of the ingame mechanic and easily exploitable by having M3's run up with troops and forcing the Germans to move out of cover/concealement to destroy them in order not to lose the base. Making themselves easy targets.  M3's didn't count as lives so if you have 5 dedicated M3 drivers staggering their runs you get a near constant stream of troops.  Once you capture the base you leave 4 or 5 guys to clean up the Germans around the base, drive the rest of your force on, and immediately land and spawn towards the next base.
Very gamey and not at all fun.
By the time we could get out of the hangar for our second line of defense the attackers were already hitting the town and we were a good 5-6 kilometers away from it.
This was not, in my opinion, a very well thought out set up.

Centering the objectives on bases and being capturable by the ingame mechanic just does not sound good to me.  Making infinite troop carriers or finite troop carriers is not a solution either, as the entire game centers around intercepting the troop carriers and it becomes an escort mission instead of an actual attack mission.  




There are so many consideration that go into a mechanized engagement that what has been presented so far imo isn't hitting the spot at all.
The objective need to be a piece of terrain that the defender can spawn in on and that the attack is required to advance towards. I'm thinking maybe a 30 or 40 minute drive for the attacker would be sufficient.
As this would allow the defense and the offense time to organise on the ground.  You can only plan so much in the tower before needing to have boots on the ground to see where you really need to be for maximum effectiveness.  This would also put a much bigger emphases on the reconnaissance game and actually make having light and fast vehicles worthwhile.  And would allow the offense to come up with something more strategically satisfying than swarm here and stagger troop deployments there.  Having a feint force and then a main attack, etc. etc. etc.
Or having the defense actually being able to leave a platoon or two on the objective and then have a more mobile  defense with scouts out to try and find the incoming attacker and create a meeting engagement.  Spawns should be random between 3 or four bases.  And having a predictable terrain feature as the objective would allow for SDK's to create a limited but possible effective artillery screen.

There are alot of ways to make the GV element in scenarios much more interesting and in-depth.  I don't think even half of them have been implemented.

It just seems way too arcadish for me right now with the way it's set up.  There's no time to adjust, to study the fight, or to make critical decisions. 

[MORAY37]

No, hes correct. Since one squad flies the same aircraft, his statement is in accordance to the rules you specified, even thought your interpretation might differ. Quoting the dictionary is just picking hairs. Personally I despise that tactic of voiding ones argument; this is not an english grammar class.

No, respectfully, he is not.  We were "attacked" by every type of aircraft the Soviets flew in this scenario.  

You missed the point.  Despise all you wish, it is fact.

[rabbidrabbit]

No, respectfully, he is not.  We were "attacked" by every type of aircraft the Soviets flew in this scenario.  

You missed the point.  Despise all you wish, it is fact.

I don't think your position is based on facts.  Could you provide facts to support your argument?  The logs are available so you should have no trouble.

[MORAY37]

I don't think your position is based on facts.  Could you provide facts to support your argument?  The logs are available so you should have no trouble.

16:19:22 Departed from Field #20 in a Yak-9U
16:46:48 Helps greenman shoot down kansas2.
16:49:41 Helps greenman shoot down OOZ662.
16:51:14 Helps BLBird shoot down prs3rd2.
16:56:43 Helps flight17 shoot down Coprhead.
16:58:49 Arrived Safely at Field #20

All four assists are on GV's.  Ooz was right next to me when this particular event occurred.  There are others, but I must now be with my family and forget this nonsense.

Interesting, as well, that in looking in the logs, BOTH IL2 groups have GV kills in the same frame.

 IL2 pilots in one group...
16:11:45 Takes on fuel/ammo/ord at field #34.
16:20:34 Shot down a SdKfz 251 flown by Mjsmoke.
16:21:20 Shot down a SdKfz 251 flown by Chump.

IL2 pilot in group 2...
14:21:34 Departed from Field #42 in a Il-2 Type 3
14:36:30 Shot down a SdKfz 251 flown by prs3rd2.

Which group was allowed to attack GV's again?

[MORAY37]

double post.

[trotter]

I suppose an outside candidate (c) is to continue to do what we did in Red Storm and just work to grow the base of GV players who are fine with that (as they do exist).  If there are GV folks who feel that this (c) is better, feel free to say so.

I wouldnt call myself a GV folk (even though I GVed in Red Storm), but I believe (c) to be the best option...simply because I really do not like the idea of the other two.

A Stalin's Fourth type of deal with no designated GV slots would, in my opinion, create GV battles where half the participants either don't want to be there, or have no previous experience in tanks.

A sealed-off ground war would, in my opinion, be a little too gamey, especially given the limited number of ground units we have available for use. Also it would not engender any sense of team unity between GVers and fliers, which I think is great bonding in scenarios.

I don't think the method we used for Red Storm was perfect, but I think it's the best alternative we have, given some modifications.

Here are my ideas for modifications:

1) Spawns that are a little further out, and also with careful attention given to the fact that neither side will be ale to achieve air superiority before the other (no side has airfields significantly closer than the other)

2) Make some of the objectives "non capture" objectives. Base capture has so many problems with "gamey"ness, plus it allows either side to easily funnel air support to an objective that is clearly marked on everyone's map.

What could we do instead? I'd love instead to have some objectives such as defend a railway bridge in some location, defenders set up along a rail line that has an enemy supply train periodically coming by. Each time the train passes, the defenders destroy the train. The attackers must regain control of the railway bridge, and the way to document victory is to have someone on the ground take screenshots of the train now passing undamaged over the bridge. That is the victory condition for that objective.

Not only is this more "realistic", and less incumbered by arcadish game mechanics, but it makes it slightly more difficult for air assets to be vectored in DIRECTLY to the battlefield. Sure, they will find it eventually, and with KP vectoring some will find it easier than others, but that slightly discrepancy between having a large flashing "V23" to be vectored to, and having to find something like 9-8-1-5 might create just enough "fog of war" to eliminate some of the simultaneous air asset overwhelming of ground forces. I think it would make the battle for air superiority over the GV battle a little more dependent on communication and skill, rather than mass numbers. And in the end, if I get bombed in a GV because the other side's air support is better skilled and better communicated, I will have no complaint. (GV's will still be able to take AA units of course).

Just an idea that I think we eliminate some of the complaints from GV'ers (remember you still can't please everyone). But I think there will ultimately be far more complaints if we go with either Options (a) or (b), as you described, Brooke.

As for the idea of eliminating GV's entirely from scenarios, I really hope this never happens. Even in future scenarios if I do not GV, I still greatly enjoy having that aspect of the scenario to "root for" and support either directly or indirectly.

[sparow]

Hello all, <S>

I'm one of those guys that flyes 90% of the time, have fun in GV's 9% of the time and uses PT Boats, Field AAA or naval artillery 1% of the time. If, on one hand, I'm almost incapable of killing a GV from a plane, on the other hand, I rarely get a GV kill in a GV... What a disaster, I know! But I like riding tanks and tank battles. I would like to participate in a GV Centric Scenario. I would love to be part of a battle with hundreds of GV's.

I agree with Hoffman and Trotter. There are many things to explore in GV'ing and special scenarios. Must be developed specific terrains for specific tank battles where aerial component must be reduced, limited or hampered. These terrains, scenarios,whatever, must be big enough to force both attackers and defenders to drive for quite a bit. These terrains must provide good cover and have hidden objectives. You don't even have to capture zip, just occupy several pre-determined zones and keep them defended and guarded until the end of the scenario.

I am also in favour of the introduction of early and mid-war armoured vehicles. This would help a lot in the creation of many scenarios. If, for the GV fans to have fun we have to forbid contact with aircraft, let's do it. If we must run scenarios exclusively dedicated to GV's, well, why not?

Cheers,