Author Topic: Open Letter To AH Tankers - and others  (Read 3196 times)

Offline Brooke

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15718
      • http://www.electraforge.com/brooke/
Re: Open Letter To AH Tankers - and others
« Reply #30 on: November 26, 2009, 06:42:42 PM »
Dropping a bomb that does no damage was not considered an attack.  Moray disagrees, but that's how we saw it and decided on it -- we felt that it would be silly to preclude a player from dropping a bomb that does no damage to anyone.  Just a small step farther down that road are rules like "A-20's can't fly in a threatening manner or scare any GV's even if they do no damage at all to the GV's"  Dropping a bomb near you that does no damage to you is not exerting any force on you or injuring you.

Anyway, we don't need to argue about it.  I don't at all feel that debate will change any minds on the issue.

In the future, we'll make the rules more clear by not using words like "attack" but use precise language like "cannot cause damage to".

Offline 5PointOh

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2842
Re: Open Letter To AH Tankers - and others
« Reply #31 on: November 26, 2009, 07:04:07 PM »
I think trotter is onto something. 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.
Coprhead
Wings of Terror
Mossie Student Driver

Offline Sloehand

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 874
Re: Open Letter To AH Tankers - and others
« Reply #32 on: November 26, 2009, 09:55:55 PM »
Dropping a bomb that does no damage was not considered an attack.  Moray disagrees, but that's how we saw it and decided on it -- we felt that it would be silly to preclude a player from dropping a bomb that does no damage to anyone.  Just a small step farther down that road are rules like "A-20's can't fly in a threatening manner or scare any GV's even if they do no damage at all to the GV's"  Dropping a bomb near you that does no damage to you is not exerting any force on you or injuring you.

Anyway, we don't need to argue about it.  I don't at all feel that debate will change any minds on the issue.

In the future, we'll make the rules more clear by not using words like "attack" but use precise language like "cannot cause damage to".

Brooke - with all the due respect I have for you and your tremendous efforts and intent to bring fun and enjoyable scenarios to us all, I find it incredulous that you can't see how utterly ridiculous and just plain stupid your position this is.

An attack is to direct lethal force towards an enemy with the intent of destroying it, whether you succeed or not.  You can't assume from the logs that because a plane missed that they weren't trying to hit a tank.  Not even from film could you be sure of that either.  Since there is no way to judge actual intent from the logs, and since I don't believe there was an established 'bomb marking' tactic in WWII, and since there is a historically viable tactic (though more difficult) of aircraft 'spotting and reporting' the location of enemy tanks, allowng aircraft to mark tanks by dropping bombs 'near' them is both logically and intellegently ridiculous.
Jagdgeschwader 77

"You sleep safe in your beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do you harm."  - George Orwell
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Offline Sloehand

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 874
Re: Open Letter To AH Tankers - and others
« Reply #33 on: November 27, 2009, 12:10:07 AM »
Hoffman, Trotter, sparrow, and 5point0 are surprisily (at least to me) in near lock-step with many of the ideas, rules and conditions I’ve been incorporating into my GV-centric scenarios and would like to try out. 

Such as -
-   different tactical objectives other than capturing a base, such as defending river bridges, cities, towns (but not bases), factories, or preventing the enemy from reaching a certain position in force.
-   when a base capture is the objective, allowing for a sufficient, but limited number of troops (often as a result of a choice by the C.O. whether to carry X# of supplies or troops by a limited number of M3’s/SDK’s, but replenishable).
-   greater transit distances before initial combat allowing for greater subterfuge, mis-direction, deception, diversion and the need for accurate and timely reconnaissance
-   A possibly more common mix of units available to both sides to eliminate historically-enforced imbalance in forces.
-   Unlimited lives with built-in limitations such as the 5 min. re-up time delay.
-   Limiting what vehicles can inflict object damage (i.e. only LVT4’s and SDK’s, or Ostwinds can take down buildings, strats, etc.)
-   Different victory point structures.

To let a bit of the ‘cat-out-of-the-bag’ as it were, I’ll sketch out what I think could be the first scenario I’d like to put on.  By the way, I’d call my series of scenarios “Steel Battlefields” with a representative title relating to the specific tactical situation imposed.  These mighted be presented in-between regular, established scenarios, with the help of a CM or two, and would allow everyone to see some different setups and rules that might transfer to the full Air-centric scenarios.  Steel Battlefields might only be 2 or 3 Saturdays in a row to complete, but would have similar structure and format to the current scenarios: i.e.  short pre-registration, established C.O.’s, specific unit designations and numbers, definded rules set, etc.

The first one I might put on might be called something like “The Last Bastion”.  Red Force would have a slight numerical advantage in total number of units, but this would be somewhat offset by being required to have one (or possibly two depending on total number of players) dedicated “assault” company containing 8x in a mix of LVT4’s (min. 2x) with the 75mm howitzer, and SDK’s (min. 2x) with rockets and troops or supplies (C.O.’s choice).   Only the vehicles in these assault units could destroy city buildings or any other ground objects, and therefore are primary targets for the opposing Blue Force to seek out and destroy to save the city and disrupt Red’s battleplan. 

In addition, the Red Force might have something like one company of 12x Tigers (three 4 element platoons), one company of 12x Shermans (3 platoons), and a company of 12x Panzers, and one recon/supply platoon of 4 SDKs with supplies only (no rockets), and one Air Defense company (8x) consisting of two platoons with 2x Wirbles and 2x Ostwinds in each.  Total of 56 GV’s.

The Red Force (usually designated as the attacker) might have three or four, or even five initial deployment bases available at different driving distance (20-40 minutes from a large city complex (but with somewhat closer re-up bases for later in the battle to minimize out-of-action and travel time), or two or more target objectives, and positioned around these in two or three directions (north, west and south).

Blue Force ground units could include a Cavalry troop (8x) consisting of one platoon of 2x M8’s and 2x T-34/76, and one of 2x M8’s and 2x T-34/85.  One scout/supply platoon of 2x jeeps and 2x M3’s.  Two companies (8x) consisting of two platoons containing 2x Tigers and 2x panzers each, one company (8x) of two platoons containing 2x Shermans and 2x Panzers.  Finally, one independent platoon of 4x T-34/85’s and one air defense platoon of 1x Wirblewind, 1x Ostwind, 2x M16’s.  Total of 44 GV’s.

The Red C.O. would logically need to conserve and protect his assault units while in transit, and could try to hide the route of the assault units by send three different columns from three different bases, or protect them by combining into one large re-enforced column with most of his heavy tanks, or some other diversionary plan.  Blue C.O. would have to quickly use limited air and ground scouting assets to try and find the right enemy column containing the assault unit(s) and quickly vector the best of his smaller forces to destroy them, and/or determine the primary or intial target objective of the enemy to postion his slightly smaller force for effective defense.

Victory would be determined by total number of ground units destroyed by each side (1 pt. by ground/1/2 pt. by air) plus 2 points for every object destroyed or remaining at the end of a frame, plus 10 MINUS points for every objective destroyed by a tank and not a valid assault vehicle.

As for aircraft participation (and this is just a possible mix off the top of my head), if included at all, might be as follows.

For the Red force, 2 C-47’s for recon and supply, 1 fighter squadron of 8x Bf109E’s and 1 fighter squadron of 8x F4F’s and 1 attack squadron which could be comprised of 4x D3A’s with only 1 250kg bomb & 4x Yak9 T’s for gun attack.  They would have to sortie from starting bases requiring at least 20-30 minutes to reach the closest possible GV conflict.

Blue force might have 2 RV8s for recon, and 1 fighter squadron of 4x Hurricane I’s & 4x Spitfires I’s, 1 fighter squadron of P-40B’s, 1 attack squadron of 6x Hurricane IID’s with the 40mm guns and 1 attack squadron of 6x P-40E with one 500lb. bomb.

There would be no level bombers to take down any hangers or towns, and no bombing or straffing of any ground objects by fighter or attack aircraft.

After two deaths in the air, each pilot reverts to a designated GV reinforcement unit and the battle plays out on the ground.

This is just one possible setup and there could be further rules and restrictions to create more variable levels of GV/Air interaction.  And of course there are variable map and terrain options, and target objectives that create different tactical situations, with or without aircraft.
Jagdgeschwader 77

"You sleep safe in your beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do you harm."  - George Orwell
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Offline stephen

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 744
Re: Open Letter To AH Tankers - and others
« Reply #34 on: November 27, 2009, 12:19:08 AM »
Ok, just keep putting up the missions, ill keep joining em, A8Popy... :rock
Spell checker is for Morrons

Offline Brooke

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15718
      • http://www.electraforge.com/brooke/
Re: Open Letter To AH Tankers - and others
« Reply #35 on: November 27, 2009, 03:39:30 AM »
You can't assume from the logs that because a plane missed that they weren't trying to hit a tank.  Not even from film could you be sure of that either.

Exactly.  You can't tell either way.  You *can* absolutely tell if a person did or did not damage a tank.  Also, regardless, a bomb dropped away from a tank does not exert any physical event at all on the tank.  It doesn't move the tank.  It doesn't damage the tank.  It doesn't impede the tank's movement.  It doesn't force the tank against its will to move from a spot.  It doesn't even get dirt on the tank.

Again, debating this issue isn't going to change any minds.

And, again, in future scenarios, if there are any restrictions like that again, we won't use the phrase "can't attack" -- we will use "can't cause physical damage to".  That should clear it all up.

Offline humble

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6434
Re: Open Letter To AH Tankers - and others
« Reply #36 on: November 27, 2009, 04:04:37 AM »

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.   :aok

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.  


This continues to baffle and amaze me. In the end all I can say is that the overall attitude of the "tankers" {on the axis side} in the game must be reflected in the gaminess of the overall environment. I've never seen such sour grapes and to me the real answer is to just suck it up and play the game. To the best of my knowledge I am the only pilot who actually marked a tank with a bomb. This happened early in frame 1. From the apparent end result it seemed that this one incident totally destroyed the morale of the german GVers and was a crutch to explain the total whupping they took at the hands of our GVers that just spanked them around.

Basically they just rolled over and died and should be ashamed of how badly they let there side down, the solution isn't better rules it's better participants.

Here is the actual event that started this ruckus (at beginning of the clip)
http://www.az-dsl.com/snaphook/Frame%201%20fun.ahf     

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."-Pres. Thomas Jefferson

Offline Brooke

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15718
      • http://www.electraforge.com/brooke/
Re: Open Letter To AH Tankers - and others
« Reply #37 on: November 27, 2009, 04:35:46 AM »
Folks, please keep in mind that there were many German GV'ers who did a great job in a difficult situation.  A big <S> to those folks.

Offline 5PointOh

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2842
Re: Open Letter To AH Tankers - and others
« Reply #38 on: November 27, 2009, 07:18:05 AM »
This continues to baffle and amaze me. In the end all I can say is that the overall attitude of the "tankers" {on the axis side} in the game must be reflected in the gaminess of the overall environment. I've never seen such sour grapes and to me the real answer is to just suck it up and play the game. To the best of my knowledge I am the only pilot who actually marked a tank with a bomb. This happened early in frame 1. From the apparent end result it seemed that this one incident totally destroyed the morale of the german GVers and was a crutch to explain the total whupping they took at the hands of our GVers that just spanked them around.

Basically they just rolled over and died and should be ashamed of how badly they let there side down, the solution isn't better rules it's better participants.

Here is the actual event that started this ruckus (at beginning of the clip)
http://www.az-dsl.com/snaphook/Frame%201%20fun.ahf     

I'd hardly say that we rolled over and died, considering that 4 of 6 top axis killers are tankers. I actually take some offense to that.

Tankers             Kills
dr7                  36
Sloehand   34
Coprhead   22
kansas2                  17


Perhaps in saying axis tankers, just refer to the ones that left.  I very pleased with how the GVrs on the Axis side who stuck it out did. They all have my utmost respect as people.  They stuck it out knowing that 15-20 guys would not return after frame one, they did their jobs, and put forth great effort. Dr7, Sloe, Kansas2, Cryptic, and PRS3RD2 all deserve recognition for their efforts and willingness to stay and fight.  To me it shows a positive insight to their characters.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2009, 07:36:01 AM by 5PointOh »
Coprhead
Wings of Terror
Mossie Student Driver

Offline humble

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6434
Re: Open Letter To AH Tankers - and others
« Reply #39 on: November 27, 2009, 07:46:26 AM »
I find the entire attitude expressed here offensive. A scenario is a complex undertaking and overall success or failure can hinge on a complex interaction of events. Almost every individual squad experiences significant difficulties at some point in a scenario...often in every frame. I know that in frame #2 strips bombers got knocked down 100% before there escort even found them. In the same frame we (221BAD) got bounced at V57 by 190F's and suffered 100% losses without being able to ever accomplish our mission. We were then sent into A7 and suffered 100% losses again. For some reason an unrealistic expectation exists that GV's are somehow different when the reality is that you are no different then strategic or TAC air assets. In the end your relying on combined arms teamwork to enable you to complete your mission...end of story. The idea that you (GVers) need special protections is absurd in my mind and completely defeats the entire purpose of a scenario as far as I'm concerned. My comments are aimed at those who rolled over and went belly up...not those who slogged on.

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."-Pres. Thomas Jefferson

Offline Sloehand

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 874
Re: Open Letter To AH Tankers - and others
« Reply #40 on: November 27, 2009, 09:38:45 AM »
Exactly.  You can't tell either way.  You *can* absolutely tell if a person did or did not damage a tank.  Also, regardless, a bomb dropped away from a tank does not exert any physical event at all on the tank.  It doesn't move the tank.  It doesn't damage the tank.  It doesn't impede the tank's movement.  It doesn't force the tank against its will to move from a spot.  It doesn't even get dirt on the tank.

Again, debating this issue isn't going to change any minds.

And, again, in future scenarios, if there are any restrictions like that again, we won't use the phrase "can't attack" -- we will use "can't cause physical damage to".  That should clear it all up.

Sorry, but no it won't.  I'm not trying to be confrontational, I'm simply saying you are so wrong in this, if you continue thinking this way, you'll need a whole new crop of GV'ers each and every scenario.  You really don't understand the importance of this, obviously.
Jagdgeschwader 77

"You sleep safe in your beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do you harm."  - George Orwell
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Offline saantana

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 763
      • Dywizjon 308
Re: Open Letter To AH Tankers - and others
« Reply #41 on: November 27, 2009, 10:11:06 AM »
I find the entire attitude expressed here offensive. A scenario is a complex undertaking and overall success or failure can hinge on a complex interaction of events. Almost every individual squad experiences significant difficulties at some point in a scenario...often in every frame. I know that in frame #2 strips bombers got knocked down 100% before there escort even found them. In the same frame we (221BAD) got bounced at V57 by 190F's and suffered 100% losses without being able to ever accomplish our mission. We were then sent into A7 and suffered 100% losses again. For some reason an unrealistic expectation exists that GV's are somehow different when the reality is that you are no different then strategic or TAC air assets. In the end your relying on combined arms teamwork to enable you to complete your mission...end of story. The idea that you (GVers) need special protections is absurd in my mind and completely defeats the entire purpose of a scenario as far as I'm concerned. My comments are aimed at those who rolled over and went belly up...not those who slogged on.

+1

I feel exactly the same way. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Those axis players that  :cry over it are giving all of their side a bad image.
I hope these scenarios talked about in this thread are not just a capitalization on the bad attitude mentioned. Sloe you have some good ideas, and I like the idea of scenarios centered around gv battles more than anything else - because as we know, there were epic GV battles in WW2. The setup discussion is great, but I tend to cringe when hearing too many rules other than 'don't shoot at the green guys'. Rules are what makes a scenario gamy.

Edit:

Quote
Sorry, but no it won't.  I'm not trying to be confrontational, I'm simply saying you are so wrong in this, if you continue thinking this way, you'll need a whole new crop of GV'ers each and every scenario.  You really don't understand the importance of this, obviously.

IMO having organized much of the event prevented Brooke from baby sitting GV's and making sure no one dared to put a couple of rounds on a tank in the process of 'marking him'. Simply put, I don't think it came across anyone's mind that this would become such a problem.

Part of Brookes success as an event organizer comes from his easy going nature and the missing urge to be an armchair general. Any person who wishes to organize events should possess these two qualities if he is to succeed in that role.

End of my 0.02 to this thread.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2009, 10:30:10 AM by saantana »
Saantana
308 Polish Squadron RAF
http://dywizjon308.servegame.org

"I have fought a good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept my faith"

Offline humble

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6434
Re: Open Letter To AH Tankers - and others
« Reply #42 on: November 27, 2009, 10:18:21 AM »
Sorry, but no it won't.  I'm not trying to be confrontational, I'm simply saying you are so wrong in this, if you continue thinking this way, you'll need a whole new crop of GV'ers each and every scenario.  You really don't understand the importance of this, obviously.

No what you need to do is either eliminate GVing (bad idea IMO) or educate GVers that a scenario is a combined arms event and that they won't be coddled. In a perfect world you'd have real spotting planes with colored smoke but any airplane was capable of acting in a spotting roll under appropriate circumstances. A GV battle does not occur in a vacuum any more then a strategic bombing attack or an air to ground tactical air strike. Your attitude underscores the real issue, once special accommodations are made unrealistic expectations take hold. The simple reality is that we're all targets for someone....

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."-Pres. Thomas Jefferson

Offline AKP

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1294
Re: Open Letter To AH Tankers - and others
« Reply #43 on: November 27, 2009, 10:37:03 AM »
< nevermind >
« Last Edit: November 27, 2009, 01:26:28 PM by AKP »

***G3-MF***

Offline MORAY37

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2318
Re: Open Letter To AH Tankers - and others
« Reply #44 on: November 27, 2009, 11:35:23 AM »
This continues to baffle and amaze me. In the end all I can say is that the overall attitude of the "tankers" {on the axis side} in the game must be reflected in the gaminess of the overall environment. I've never seen such sour grapes and to me the real answer is to just suck it up and play the game. To the best of my knowledge I am the only pilot who actually marked a tank with a bomb. This happened early in frame 1. From the apparent end result it seemed that this one incident totally destroyed the morale of the german GVers and was a crutch to explain the total whupping they took at the hands of our GVers that just spanked them around.

Basically they just rolled over and died and should be ashamed of how badly they let there side down, the solution isn't better rules it's better participants.

Here is the actual event that started this ruckus (at beginning of the clip)
http://www.az-dsl.com/snaphook/Frame%201%20fun.ahf    


It's not all about you, sir, no matter how much you want it to be. Your one pushing of the rules just added into the gaminess.  And I'm pretty sure the fact that the Tigers had the highest total kills means they shelled out the whooping, with significantly fewer numbers.

If you are directing your venom at me, you should note that I changed to supporting my comrades on the ground, and had the most air to ground kills of anyone, on either side, in this scenario.

Nobody rolled over and died.

Quote
The Most:

Total Kills:      Sethbag          39
A2A Kills:      WMLute   28
A2G Kills:      A8Moray   9

Might I suggest you take your namesake to heart, and get a bit more "humble", instead of posting such inflammatory crap as you just did.  

We're just trying to fix what is broken.  Your post isn't helping that.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2009, 11:45:00 AM by MORAY37 »
"Ocean: A body of water occupying 2/3 of a world made for man...who has no gills."
-Ambrose Bierce