Open Letter To AH Tankers - and others

[humble]

The historical realities varied, in the end the side that controlled the air won the ground battle. The air battle over Kursk was the largest of WW2 in any theater...and the soviets maintained air equality just as they did earlier at Kuban. While theoretically the tactical air assets had superiority the allies only had a maximum of 30 tactical air slots with 60 lives compared to the 20 GV's x 4 lives. Additionally the GV's did not lose a life to any air attack or when in a halftrack. Combine this with aircraft tasking on other targets and the layout is not really that imbalanced.

To me the real area of improvement would be a larger front offering significant flexibility with both frontal bases and more importantly reasonable spawns in more reward area's. This would allow for both an initial assault and then a follow up move to engagement as forces were pulled and spawned to contain the enemy advance. In effect you would have a pure tactical campaign with no strategic targets. The attacking force would have no spawn capability beyond its initial active bases and thus the flow of supplies would be critical since repairing damaged vehicles would be integral to maintaining a correct pace of movement. This would place a proper emphasis on both air and ground interdiction of supply units for the defenders and protection of same for the attackers. Also a fundamental understanding of line of march and use of airlift capabilities. A battle where actually disguising your route of march to some degree and managing to keep your logistics trains moving would place a heavier burden on TAC air assets.

As a single example if it was absolutely mission critical that at T+90  C-47's were able to make a low level drop to resupply the 26 (random number) remaining tanks of "task force alpha" as they positioned to envelope and overrun the enemy left flank and secure "VXX" the designated supply depot for the enemy right flank... a full 65 minutes after being passed thru the initial assault brigade and "disappearing" into the void. To a degree weather would help but even in good weather meeting engagements were common in fluid situations. No question eliminating icons would help...but Icons only show at 1.5 anyway. The bigger issue is who controls the skies over the battle field at what time. The biggest issue for both sides wasn't the other guys planes...it was having your own air where you needed it at the right time...something both sides struggled with.

[Sloehand]

I would be Happy to put my name on the list Sloehand. 


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

<S>

Would have loved to have had you with us FireDrgn, and could have used you to be sure.   

[Brooke]

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.

Absolutely.  A big <S> and much respect to all of the German tankers who stuck it out and fought hard.   

[MORAY37]

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.

Someone who gets it.  Turn off the neon sign over the tank, put weather in, and have zero limitations.  That's what you have to do to get a GV following.  Until you do something like that, you won't win either way.

[Brooke]

Yep, those are points that figured into real GV battles.  But:

The vast majority of players prefer planes, so it's unlikely that we'd be able to fill a scenario having a 10:1 ratio of GV's to planes.

It isn't possible to turn off icons.

It is possible to have thicker clouds near the ground, but I'm not sure that would impede air attack much because of the icons.  However, when there was too much cloud cover, planes tended not to be sent on ground attack.  So, the resulting situation can be closely approximated regardless of icons by not having planes attack GV's.

[Brooke]

With respect to the 10:1 GV's to planes, that's why we tried having only a particular set of planes attack GV's.  That way, we were able to have a scenario with a lot of planes (which again is what most players want) yet try to get away from GV's feeling the effect of it being 1:10 GV's to planes.  By restricting to one squadron, full turnout would have resulted in an effect of roughly 2:1 GV's to planes.

[Brooke]

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.

So GV'ers will play in and be happy with a scenario that says "except for special aircraft, no aircraft can cause damage to, drop bombs near, or shoot bullets near tanks" but will refuse to play in or be totally dissatisfied with a scenario that says "except for special aircraft, no aircraft can cause damage to tanks, but aircraft can drop bombs or shoot bullets that do not damage tanks"?

To me, that is being way too touchy if the critical difference is whether or not planes can do things that cause no damage -- it's the same as them just creating sound and a flash of light.  But folks have their preferences, and I don't expect their preferences to be the same as mine.

However, as mentioned above, precluding things like that is impractical.  Judging whether or not damage was done at least is straightforward and absolute.  Judging whether a bomb was dropped too near or a bullet shot too near is not straightforward and is subjective.  It would be too much headache to deal with that, likely with lots of films to gather and look through based on complaints.

As I talked about above, the three options I see to handle all of this are: (a) no interaction between GV's and aircraft at all; (b) no dedicated GV positions at all and X lives in planes and Y lives in GV's for all players; or (c) Red Storm-style rules.  (a) would work best for GV'ers, but there are other players who would complain about it.  We'd have to consider if we'd lose more players than we gain.  (b) provides no dedicated spots for GV enthusiasts, but we get rid of the headaches, it is proven to work, and it results in a lot more GV's on the battlefield.  (c) sort of works in that there are GV enthusiasts who enjoyed Red Storm, but of course there is a group that did not.  We'd have to consider whether or not there are enough GV'ers who are fine with it, and we'd have to realize that there would be at least some GV'ers who wouldn't play in it.

That's how I see it currently -- my own view, not necessarily that of anyone else.  We'll all continue to ponder and discuss, as it's not something we need to decide immediately.

I know that everyone here is giving their opinions to have better scenarios.  Our difficulty is just that, like with movies and food, not everyone agrees on what is best.  So, we try to pick a good balance, and we occasionally try different things in scenarios to see how it goes.

[humble]

Brooke, to me its pretty simple. No one should get preferential treatment. Both sides had planes vulched while rearming, bounced during or shortly after takeoff or knocked down while RTB. Buffs were jumped repeatedly either before the escorts hooked up, because they were flying without escort or the escorts were driven off or killed. As far as I'm concerned any plane should be able to attack any target it happens to be in a position to...end of story. It's up to the CiC for each side to allocate and protect his assets as he see's fit. Above and beyond that both sides had unlimited access to wirbles...

[Strip]

Brooke, to me its pretty simple. No one should get preferential treatment. Both sides had planes vulched while rearming, bounced during or shortly after takeoff or knocked down while RTB. Buffs were jumped repeatedly either before the escorts hooked up, because they were flying without escort or the escorts were driven off or killed. As far as I'm concerned any plane should be able to attack any target it happens to be in a position to...end of story. It's up to the CiC for each side to allocate and protect his assets as he see's fit. Above and beyond that both sides had unlimited access to wirbles...

I like that idea, or how about only special planes can attack bombers?

I am tired of being jumped by uber cannon rides.....

 

(For the record I do agree with humble.)

[Brooke]

Humble, there are indeed folks who do not like restrictions on attacks.

In scenarios, we try our best to balance history, playability, action, and player enjoyment.  These things sometimes pull in opposite directions.  In the case of GV's, it was true historically that there were a lot more GV's than aircraft.  So, if we have scenarios with 50 GV's and 150 aircraft and no restrictions, the GV's can get swarmed by aircraft in totally non-historical ratio.  By restricting aircraft-GV interaction, we were trying to get it to be more historical in that ratio.

Now, if we have scenarios with 200 players, and all of them are going to be in a GV at some point (because they get some lives in aircraft and some in GV's), then we have a lot more GV's and need less restriction.  That's one way to go.

[humble]

Brooke,

I actually understand completely and have no issue with reasonable restrictions. For example the restriction that a GV death due to air attack is in my mind a reasonable compromise for the numbers imbalance. In effect the only penalty is a lose of potentially superior position. This is counterbalanced by the reality that a "superior" position often is outflanked and ammo runs out, so in effect an aerial assault could actually add a life in that it would allow a tactical withdrawal from a position in the process of being compromised. The flip side is that the bombers and attack planes are at risk and restricted from having any impact on the GV battle itself.

From my limited perspective in this scenario (since I wasn't on the command team) the biggest drawback for allied GV's was the lack of direct control of any dedicated air assets during the 1st few frames. While this appeared to improve (and appeared to have significant impact) in the later frames the reality is that dedicated air assets under the direct control of the ground commander are essential in my mind for any sustained survivability. Tactics on the ground will always be dictated by conditions in the air to a large degree and the idea that a ground campaign can be conducted in a vacuum are misguided and entirely against the grain with regard to the intent of a scenario. The development and integral deployment of AA units was a clear indication of the realities. The very sporadic use of such weapons systems by the axis was as much to blame as any other factor, especially since aerial death did not count...so the supply of wirbles was effectively unlimited.

Personally I'd have deployed 1 wirbie/2 tiger sets as often as practical at key choke points since they are effectively "free" while aircraft lives were not replaceable.

[VANDALS]

I do think a mainly GV scenario is in order, like say the battle of Kursk or something.  As for the last scenario, I don't think there was  enough GV's, thats why I signed up to fly.  Tunisia seemed to work out well, at least for me, I got bombed like everyone else, but kept on fighting.  Nothing will be perfect to satisfy every single person.  Someone will always find a way to complain about something. 

[fudgums]

I do think a mainly GV scenario is in order, like say the battle of Kursk or something.

I don't believe there is a kursk map, the CMs might be working on one. Blauk has said that the new Karelia map is coming out in January though  .

[Sloehand]

So GV'ers will play in and be happy with a scenario that says "except for special aircraft, no aircraft can cause damage to, drop bombs near, or shoot bullets near tanks" but will refuse to play in or be totally dissatisfied with a scenario that says "except for special aircraft, no aircraft can cause damage to tanks, but aircraft can drop bombs or shoot bullets that do not damage tanks"?

To me, that is being way too touchy if the critical difference is whether or not planes can do things that cause no damage -- it's the same as them just creating sound and a flash of light.  But folks have their preferences, and I don't expect their preferences to be the same as mine.

However, as mentioned above, precluding things like that is impractical.  Judging whether or not damage was done at least is straightforward and absolute.  Judging whether a bomb was dropped too near or a bullet shot too near is not straightforward and is subjective.  It would be too much headache to deal with that, likely with lots of films to gather and look through based on complaints.

As I talked about above, the three options I see to handle all of this are: (a) no interaction between GV's and aircraft at all; (b) no dedicated GV positions at all and X lives in planes and Y lives in GV's for all players; or (c) Red Storm-style rules.  (a) would work best for GV'ers, but there are other players who would complain about it.  We'd have to consider if we'd lose more players than we gain.  (b) provides no dedicated spots for GV enthusiasts, but we get rid of the headaches, it is proven to work, and it results in a lot more GV's on the battlefield.  (c) sort of works in that there are GV enthusiasts who enjoyed Red Storm, but of course there is a group that did not.  We'd have to consider whether or not there are enough GV'ers who are fine with it, and we'd have to realize that there would be at least some GV'ers who wouldn't play in it.

That's how I see it currently -- my own view, not necessarily that of anyone else.  We'll all continue to ponder and discuss, as it's not something we need to decide immediately.

I know that everyone here is giving their opinions to have better scenarios.  Our difficulty is just that, like with movies and food, not everyone agrees on what is best.  So, we try to pick a good balance, and we occasionally try different things in scenarios to see how it goes.

Maybe, just maybe, we are sort of talking around two different points.

My point is - 
If the rules say an aircraft is not allowed to “attack” or “destroy” a target (like a tank), then it seems logical and easier to avoid ‘accidents, by telling them not to target a tank with the intention of shooting or dropping a bomb near it.   Just from a historical/realism perspective, an aircraft wouldn’t be wasting valuable ordinance that could kill a tank just to “mark” it.

Plus from a referee point of view, if a tanker complains that he was killed by an ‘illegal’ aircraft, it is quickly clear whether it was a legal or non-legal aircraft that killed him.   If it was a non-legal aircraft, then a check to see if said destroyed tank was within reasonable bomb blast distance of a valid target such as a hangar would determine it as a legal drop (even if the pilot’s target WAS the tank, who could tell).  But if it’s determined the tank was outside the bomb blast of a near miss on a building or hangar, regardless of intended target, then that would incur a penalty, either for targeting the tank or being such a bad and inaccurate hangar bomber.  Seems only fair that the 'bad luck' penalty should work both ways:  tanker too close to building target gets destroyed, or hangar bomber not targeting tank but missing hangar by more than 50-100 ft. destroys tank.  Tanker gets destroyed and penalized in either case, so bad bomber should get penalized points in second case.

By allowing non-legal aircraft (meaning can’t attack tanks) to drop supposedly ‘near’ a tank or fire guns ‘close’ to him to mark him, opens up more opportunity for accidental infractions as most players in this game probably have a hit percentage of what they aim at of less that 25%.  He’s gonna want to hit close enough so his GV buddies can get an accurate fix, but not close enough to hurt the tank and get penalized.  Just encourages a bad situational choice on the pilot’s part.
 
If he drops too close to the tank to damage or kill, how do you know he wasn’t trying to kill the tank illegally in the first place?  And if he does damage or kill it while trying to only mark it, why should such an opportunity even occur and force the tanker to spend 5 min. in the Tower, and maybe unnecessarily ruin a good defense or a fair GV to GV kill by that tank?  How do you fairly repair that mistake?  Why would you even open up the possibility and encourage planes to shoot and drop near a target they’re not allowed to imped in anyway (damage/kill) and risk such an ‘accidental’ outcome.  Isn’t smarter and easier all round to say don’t “target” a tank for bombs or gunfire in any way if you’re not allow to kill it?

[Brooke]

My point is - 
If the rules say an aircraft is not allowed to “attack” or “destroy” a target (like a tank), then it seems logical and easier to avoid ‘accidents, by telling them not to target a tank with the intention of shooting or dropping a bomb near it.

Then you are talking about (1) rules interpretation and (2) following rules as your primary issues.

As for rules interpretation, whether the rules say "don't cause damage to or drop near" or say "don't cause damage to, but other than that, you aren't restricted", it is clear.  That fixes the clarity issue either way.

As for the second part, following the rules, you believe that "don't drop bombs near" would increase compliance (i.e., reduce accidents).  Yep, it might reduce accidents, but it won't make them zero -- and even if they were zero, you still have people who think there was a violation that needs to be looked into.  Then, if you have "can't drop a bomb or shoot near a GV", the CM's will be needing to look through films (takes *enormous* time to coordinate the gathering and reviewing of films), make subjective judgements on whether some event was near or not, get screamed at by players who feel that they were "bombed near" but no longer have films, get screamed at by players who think a hit was near when you think it wasn't ("I measured 210 yards."  "Well, I measured 196 yards, and that's inside the radius!!!!") and so on.  Whatever rules you have, you need to plan on looking into them and making judgements on events that fall right on the decision point -- and the headache of doing that follows approximately the following formula:  headache = (10,000 * subjectiveness)^300.  (Math joke -- how often do you see those, eh?)