Author Topic: Open Letter To AH Tankers - and others  (Read 3183 times)

Offline humble

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6434
Re: Open Letter To AH Tankers - and others
« Reply #45 on: November 27, 2009, 11:51:33 AM »
The only thing "broken" is your collective attitude. Everyone has to rely on teamwork and someone else but GVer's are somehow entitled to a sterile environment? What a crock. As far as I'm concerned the entire "take my ball and go home" attitude displayed simply indicates that the rules were already bent a bit to far before.

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

Offline Strip

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3319
Re: Open Letter To AH Tankers - and others
« Reply #46 on: November 27, 2009, 11:55:02 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.

<S> to them...

Strip

Offline MORAY37

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2318
Re: Open Letter To AH Tankers - and others
« Reply #47 on: November 27, 2009, 12:01:40 PM »
At this point, I've found instances of BOTH IL-2 groups targeting GV's in every frame (kills and assists on GV's by both groups).  Why bother to write a rule set?

Brooke, just take all the rules back to the MA style at this point.  Don't even write them.  Don 't make "concessions" as you call it, to GV's, (it's not like they can't already be seen from 5,000 feet with a bright red tag)
and just let each scenario wipe away the GV component a little more.  I love to GV, and I'll never do it again in a scenario, a sentiment already echoed by many of the top GV'rs that joined this scenario, thinking that you "learned something" from Tunisia.  

Don't make "concessions" to any side.  Just throw it all up in a big MA free for all...after all, that's where it ends up.  You get, "Glide bombing" not "Dive Bombing"; "Marking tanks with bombs" not "Attacking tanks with bombs".

Or, you just get an impossible situation, where you can't tell which group of IL's is the GV attack squadron, and they use that to their advantage and both attack GV's.

"Ocean: A body of water occupying 2/3 of a world made for man...who has no gills."
-Ambrose Bierce

Offline Strip

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3319
Re: Open Letter To AH Tankers - and others
« Reply #48 on: November 27, 2009, 12:04:38 PM »
You assume that Allies were acting malicously, did it ever occur to you that some damage can come from legal tactics?

Like bombing buildings....

Offline MORAY37

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2318
Re: Open Letter To AH Tankers - and others
« Reply #49 on: November 27, 2009, 12:06:34 PM »
The only thing "broken" is your collective attitude. Everyone has to rely on teamwork and someone else but GVer's are somehow entitled to a sterile environment? What a crock. As far as I'm concerned the entire "take my ball and go home" attitude displayed simply indicates that the rules were already bent a bit to far before.

If you just want 15 people each frame to be targets, with bright red icons visible from 5,000',  unable to shoot back, your plan is a great one.

Good luck finding anyone who wants that kind of fun.  
"Ocean: A body of water occupying 2/3 of a world made for man...who has no gills."
-Ambrose Bierce

Offline MORAY37

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2318
Re: Open Letter To AH Tankers - and others
« Reply #50 on: November 27, 2009, 12:07:17 PM »
You assume that Allies were acting malicously, did it ever occur to you that some damage can come from legal tactics?

Like bombing buildings....

Always an excuse.
"Ocean: A body of water occupying 2/3 of a world made for man...who has no gills."
-Ambrose Bierce

Offline Strip

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3319
Re: Open Letter To AH Tankers - and others
« Reply #51 on: November 27, 2009, 12:22:38 PM »
Excuse?

Its already been proven that it did and does happen within the rules. A VH being bombed with vehicles rolling out of it is a valid target.

Despite any vehicles taking damage....is this the case all of the time? Probably not but it does happen and screen shots were posted of it.

Strip

Offline fudgums

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4042
Re: Open Letter To AH Tankers - and others
« Reply #52 on: November 27, 2009, 12:31:04 PM »
I blame karaya.
"Masters of the Air" Scenario - JG27

Offline HB555

  • Aces High CM Staff (Retired)
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7097
Re: Open Letter To AH Tankers - and others
« Reply #53 on: November 27, 2009, 12:34:04 PM »
Excuse?

Its already been proven that it did and does happen within the rules. A VH being bombed with vehicles rolling out of it is a valid target.

Despite any vehicles taking damage....is this the case all of the time? Probably not but it does happen and screen shots were posted of it.

Strip

Heaven help me....I agree with strip, as is evidenced by the logs. I was in a Ju-88 at 5K, and did not even SEE a vehicle below me.

14:59:06 Destroyed a vehicle hangar at base #23 
14:59:07 Shot down a Ostwind flown by jollyFE.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2009, 12:36:21 PM by HB555 »
Snoopy Bell

HB555 A gentleman, with a school boys heart, and crazy enough to think he is a cartoon dog.

Offline AKP

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1294
Re: Open Letter To AH Tankers - and others
« Reply #54 on: November 27, 2009, 01:26:57 PM »
Taking what a few have said here, and adding a few thoughts of my own, I offer up this idea as a possible scenario for a “tank-centric” battle.  Now, before anyone takes it too much to heart, keep in mind that this is just an idea.  For myself, I have not participated in an AH scenario yet, but I do take part in FSO… and I am drawing on part of what I have seen and experienced there to help put this together.

The maps below, represents 4 grid sectors in which the battle would take place.  It is completely non-historical in the sense that is does not represent any “real” place, or battle that ever took place.  I added names for the “towns” for ease of identification, and to add a bit of humor (hopefully).   

Also note, that I have little experience with the Map Editor, and some of the things I am proposing may not be possible or feasible… and if so, please feel free to point that out.  Also, since this map does not exist, someone would have to create it, or something like it, in order for this to be done.  However, since the battle is only going to take place over 4 sectors, it doesn’t seem like it would be that much work, when compared to making an entire map. 



Why only 4 sectors?  To concentrate masses of tanks into an epic ground battle, and to limit the time it takes to traverse the distance, and engage in combat to something that can be done in the span of just over 2 hours of real time.

The trees on the map should be laid out very densely, so that travel through the forested areas will be extremely slow and difficult for GV’s. The exception would be the roads leading through them.  The roadway areas would be only wide enough to allow a few tanks to effectively operate side by side at one time.  This will allow for several things:

1)   Faster travel on the roads as opposed to the forests
2)   Realistic defense choke points and ambushes… giving the defenders an advantage.

THE MAP SETUP:

The Allies (Green) hold the central town of Addinkdale, and the 4 surrounding villages of Sudzville, Pyroville, Skuzzydale, and Rosieham.  They have been surrounded by the Axis forces (yellow) and must defend them, and the factories at Addinkdale at all costs.

Addinkdale: Comprised of a city and 2 or 3 factories.  About the size of the grouped “tank towns” we see on the ndisles map or the tank town in the DA.

Outlying Towns:  about the size of a single tank town… no factories.

Vehicle Bases 1 & 2: On plateaus at 10,000 ft, with no access to the rest of the map except by the spawn points indicated.  May not be attacked by opposing forces.
 
Airbases 3 & 4: On plateaus at 10,000 ft, with no access to the rest of the map except by the spawn points indicated.  May not be attacked by opposing forces.

Radar is off, and detection ranges are set to the absolute minimum (zero if this is possible).  This will make detection of opposing forces dependent on the eyes and ears of players.

ORDER OF BATTLE:

The Allies should be outnumbered by the Axis in this scenario, as defense on this map should be easier than attacking. The exact ratio is something that can be discussed later.  Also, the air component should not equal more than 10% of the total numbers of each side… keeping this primarily a ground fight.  The primary functions of aircraft would be reconnaissance and supply.  Close air support, and air interdiction would be performed as needed.

Allies:
Jeep (for scout & supply roles)
M3 (for scout and supply roles)
M8
M16
T-34
Sherman VC or T-34/85 (in limited numbers)
P-47D-40
C-47

Axis:
Jeep (for scout and supply roles)
Sdkfz-251 (for scout and supply roles)
M8 (its as close as we have to approximate the SdKfz 234)
Ostwind / Wirblewind
Panzer IV
Tiger I (in limited numbers)
FW-190A-8
C-47


SCENARIO TIMELINE

Allies:

T+0: May spawn in GV’s from V2 into any of the spawn points as directed by their CiC.  From those initial positions, they may send out scout patrols to look for advancing Axis forces, and set up their initial defensive lines.  It would be up to the CiC to decide which units spawn where, and how best to defend each of the outlying towns, as he will not know in advance which directions the attacks will come from, or how heavy each one will be.
 
Air units may spawn from A3 to scout for opposing ground units, and engage Axis air and ground forces in the P-47 only at this point.
 
T+15: All fields are now closed.  Air units may return to A3 to refuel and rearm as many times as needed.  Any players killed in GV’s or shot down in aircraft, must now wait until T+60 for the reinforcements phase to get another chance to reup.
 
T+60: A3 ONLY reopens for all Allied players.  Those assigned to GV’s may spawn into Addinkdale ONLY, and only in the T-34.  Players assigned to air units, may reup in the C-47 ONLY, carrying vehicle supplies.  Pilots who were not shot down during the first 60 minutes, may now return to base if needed and reup in a C-47 if needed.

T+75: A3 Closes again.  All allied players are on their final life.  Scenario will now run to its completion.

Axis:

T+0: May spawn in GV’s from V1 into any of the spawn points as directed by their CiC.  From those initial positions, they may send out advance scouts to probe Allied defenses, and begin their advance with their assault forces.  It would be up to the CiC to decide which units spawn where, and how best to attack each of the outlying towns, as he will not know in advance how heavily each of the towns have been fortified.
 
Air units may spawn from A4 to scout for opposing ground units, and engage Allied air and ground forces in the FW-190 only at this point.
 
T+15: All fields are now closed.  Air units may return to A4 to refuel and rearm as many times as needed.  Any players killed in GV’s or shot down in aircraft, must now wait until T+60 for the reinforcements phase to get another chance to reup.
 
T+60: A4 ONLY reopens for all Axis players.  Those assigned to GV’s may spawn into any of the spawn points shown on the map as directed by the CiC, but only in the Panzer I.  Players assigned to air units, may reup in the C-47 ONLY, carrying vehicle supplies.  Pilots who were not shot down during the first 60 minutes, may now return to base if needed and reup in a C-47 if needed.

T+75: A4 Closes again.  All Axis players are on their final life.  Scenario will now run to its completion.

VICTORY CONDITIONS AND SCORING:

Both sides will get points for each opposing ground and air unit destroyed.  Points for individual unit type should be weighted, so that the more powerful the unit is, the more points it is worth.

The Axis side will get points for each FACTORY structure they destroy.

The Allies will get points for each FACTORY structure not destroyed.

Note that normal town buildings are not worth anything.  The main objectives are the factories at Addinkdale… which keeps the fight moving in that direction.

At the end of the fight, the side with the most points wins.

NOTES:

What I have tried to show with the respawns at T+60, is a “reinforcements” phase.  Allies would only be able to deploy reinforcements from Addinkdale, and would have to then send them out where needed to stop the Axis advance.  The Axis CiC, would be able to decide which of the 4 spawn points his forces are needed the most, and deploy them accordingly, and continue his advance on Addinkdale.

The reason I propose separate airbases and vehicle bases, instead of just airbases, is to make it easier at T+60 to ensure everyone deploys where they are supposed to… and make it easier for the CM’s so they only have to open up the 2 airfields, and not all of them.

The second phase of air units, allows for badly needed supplies to be dropped in for each sides tanks to continue the fight.  It also gives surviving fighters the chance to intercept and shoot down the supply planes.

Given that sectors are 25 miles across, the location of the spawn points and the towns, and the speed of the GV’s involved, one could expect the “action” to start on the ground at around T+30 (give or take).  It also allows for a realistic possibility that Axis forces could be attacking the main town of Addinkdale by T+60 (give or take).  In contrast, air units could start spotting and engaging within the first 5 – 10 minutes… and pilots would need to be very careful about choosing their engagements.

You may have noticed that there are no capture points in any of the towns.  This means there is no need for troops, or any of the usual MA “gameyness” that goes with them (like sneaking an M3 in behind a whole line of tanks to score a meaningless victory).  As stated before, attacking the bases on the map is off limits.

So… there is my idea.  I am sure it’s not perfect, and I am relying on all of you to add to it and make it better if needed.  But… I do think that something along these lines would lead to an exciting, and very enjoyable tank battle, with huge numbers of tanks on each side. 

You can also throw in the option of playing a “best 2 out of 3” situation over 3 frames.   Frame 1 would start as above.  For Frame 2, the Axis would be the defenders… and for Frame 3, the team in the lead gets to choose attack or defense.

Is it historical? Not at all.  But it does what we are all wanting.  It gives us a confined area, to mass large amounts of tanks, and blow the snot out of each other.

***G3-MF***

Offline BaldEagl

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10791
Re: Open Letter To AH Tankers - and others
« Reply #55 on: November 27, 2009, 01:28:37 PM »
At no point does the definition of "attack" include "success" or "kill".  

Sorry I didn't read all the posts but what exactly do you think "3 : to begin to affect or to act on injuriously" means?
I edit a lot of my posts.  Get used to it.

Offline FireDrgn

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1115
Re: Open Letter To AH Tankers - and others
« Reply #56 on: November 27, 2009, 01:48:16 PM »
I would be Happy to put my name on the list Sloehand.  :banana: :banana:


I wish I could have played in the last seniario but RL got in the way.

<S>
"When the student is ready the teacher will appear."   I am not a teacher.

Offline humble

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6434
Re: Open Letter To AH Tankers - and others
« Reply #57 on: November 27, 2009, 02:01:20 PM »
If you just want 15 people each frame to be targets, with bright red icons visible from 5,000',  unable to shoot back, your plan is a great one.

Good luck finding anyone who wants that kind of fun.  

Everyone is a target, the GV's were the only targets with artificial protection. Every GV unit had the ability to launch flaks for air defense. Why would you think your any different then the B-25's, A-20's, IL-2's or JU-88's? Somehow your not interdependent on the rest of your team for mutual protection. I spent time every frame (except #4) flying over targets I couldn't attack while under attack or at risk of attack. I know for a fact that not 1 GV was killed or damaged outside the rules by any A-20 in any frame. While it is certainly clear from the logs that GV's were hit by units not supposed to engage them circumstances are not clear. Just from on range radio chatter I know that german GV's were in the town at A68 and A7 for sure. Collateral damage to GV's deployed in or near legitimate targets is to be expected. The moment that this issue came up on the general scenario BBS I immediately posted the clip here above for review...both by the opposing side and the CM's. The clip clearly shows the intent, coordination and end result. There was zero rules infraction of any kind, nor was there ever any intent to violate either the substance or spirit of the rules. If so many rules violations occurred then produce a few clips for review...

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

Offline Motherland

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8110
Re: Open Letter To AH Tankers - and others
« Reply #58 on: November 27, 2009, 02:27:10 PM »
Here are my thoughts on the subject, not as a tanker but someone who attends scenarios/FSO regularly;

First I'll say that I've never been really involved in the GV aspect except for an FSO a long time ago in which we were in GV's first life for a frame- I thought it was very fun.
I'll also say that I rarely tank in game, however I love the bombing of the tanks. And I've never understood why this is looked down upon so much the more dedicated GV people. But I think it's extremely fun and challenging.

In Dawn of Battle and Red Storm/Krupp Steel (the former I only flew one frame of and the latter I flew two or three) it seemed that, at least from my very detached viewpoint, the attempt was made to make the GV battle some kind of vacuum (especially in the case of Dawn of Battle) where air-to-ground activity was severely restricted to appease tankers-- it seemed as if there were two scenarios going on, one in the air and one on the ground. (Again this is from the perspective of someone not involved in any way other than hearing the drama around it and knowing that I was not to attack tanks.) To me, this seems to be the wrong way to go about doing it. To me it would seem that in a scenario with GV's, the GV battle should be the center of the action, for the air combatants as well as the ground combatants.
Just my opinion- I hate artificial rules (don't bomb/interact with tanks unless you're allowed to do so). Rather for me when things seem more natural (it's impractical for aircraft other than certain types to interact with GV's) the 'immersive' feeling goes up. Making it difficult for aircraft to kill tanks by introducing new conditions that make it nearly impossible for level bombers to have an effect, and difficult for even dedicated attack aircraft to kill tanks, would in my opinion improve the experience of the GV'ers (who don't have to deal with being bombed so much) and the pilots don't have to deal with rules that, I think, at least, cheapen the event.

Like I said, I love bombing tanks. I don't know why but it's a ton of fun. So, to an extent, I know what nightmare conditions are for an attack pilot.
The first is a lot of air activity. I rarely bomb the tank town in Trinity because there's almost always a lot of air action there, which usually ends up in my big slow attack bird getting shot down. When there's a lot of fighter cover it's very difficult to set up a good run, if you expect to get out alive; which of course is even more important in scenarios.
Another thing you don't want is not being able to find the tanks. I was up yesterday and found it's a lot harder to find tanks without the icon with the new terrain unless you get low (which is bad because you have less altitude to bomb with and it makes you an easier target for fighters.) I think turning off enemy tank icons (or tank icons all together) could actually be beneficial, which is something I never would have said pre-2.14. Setting up scattered low cloud cover would also make air-to-ground work more difficult for aircraft other than dedicated attack aircraft.
Another thing, to make it more difficult to level bomb from altitude, would be to set up opposing, random speed wind layers from maybe 1000-2000 feet up to 20,000 feet or so- not enough to make level bombing useless but enough to make pinpoint bombing impossible. This could also mean you'd have to send large groups of bombers to carpet bomb the new strats instead of 5-6 guys to drop their bombs on the important buildings. I'm not sure how practical that would be though.

In summary-
GV-battle centric action to place a lot of air-to-air importance in killing and defending attack aircraft,
No GV icons
'Weather' in the form of low cloud cover and winds to make it more difficult to bomb, especially level bomb GV's.

I think if implemented these changes could create a very fun combined assault scenario.

Offline 715

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1835
Re: Open Letter To AH Tankers - and others
« Reply #59 on: November 27, 2009, 04:12:26 PM »
I think the main problem is the ratio of planes to GVs in scenarios (and in the MA) is just the inverse of real life.  This makes GVs nothing more than fun targets for planes.  The ratio in the MA is about 5 planes for each GV.  In scenarios the ratio is only a bit less.  At Kursk there were over 8000 tanks and self propelled guns in the battle.  That does not even count the untold thousands of other support GVs.  Unfortunately I don't have the order of battle for the aircraft, but it's got to be in the hundreds, not thousands.  So the ratio of aircraft to GVs in the real Kursk battle has got to be something like 1 aircraft to 10 GVs.  That's 50 times less than MA or scenarios.  So a GVer is 50 times more likely to be killed by aircraft, making his life essentially worthless. 

Why would a GVer want to waste time in that kind of environment?  So either there needs to be annoying gamey rules or you need a scenario that has almost all slots as GVs.  And yes, removing the neon signs from the GVs would help.  I personally think that for scenarios the neon signs should be removed from everything.  You'd still be able to spot cons and it would just require better communication skills to ID them as friend or foe.

Personally, I think they should be bold and at least try a scenario with a 10 to 1 ratio of GV slots to plane slots, neon off, heavy cloud cover, and no limitations on attacks on GVs.  You never know, you might get some takers.