Author Topic: Open Letter To AH Tankers - and others  (Read 3180 times)

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: Open Letter To AH Tankers - and others
« Reply #75 on: November 30, 2009, 11:44:33 PM »
You know what? Some folks will NEVER fly FSO.. Nor will they ever be allowed to. They belong in the MA doing mindless things.



SOME folks just shouldn't be in scenarios either.... If you think GVs should be in a vacuum you're probably one of them.

Offline Strip

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3319
Re: Open Letter To AH Tankers - and others
« Reply #76 on: November 30, 2009, 11:48:37 PM »
Brooke,

Save yourself the grief and get rid of GV's all together....the amount of rules some of them are asking for are borderline ludicrous.

 :rolleyes:

Strip

Offline phatzo

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3734
      • No Crying
Re: Open Letter To AH Tankers - and others
« Reply #77 on: November 30, 2009, 11:57:12 PM »
Brooke,

Save yourself the grief and get rid of GV's all together....the amount of rules some of them are asking for are borderline ludicrous.

 :rolleyes:

Strip
WHAT HE SAID
It seems to be not worth the hassle, if they want to complain just can the gv's. They can all go back to the MA and whine about bomb****s.

p.s. <--- shameless bomb****
No thank you Turkish, I'm sweet enough.

Offline VANDALS

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 58
      • 666th BARBARIANS FG
Re: Open Letter To AH Tankers - and others
« Reply #78 on: December 01, 2009, 12:49:42 AM »
It it  my understanding that scenarios are recreations of important battles during ww2.  Not bombing gv's would make it unrealistic.  It happened.  I think in order to have tanks in a scenario you would have to have a gv scenario.  The main force would be tanks, but there would also be support aircraft to take out tanks and planes to protect the tanks.  If one side doesn't coordinate a good cap to protect their tanks, and to support the strike force that side will suffer. 
"If everyone is thinking alike, then someone is not thinking"


Offline PFactorDave

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4334
Re: Open Letter To AH Tankers - and others
« Reply #79 on: December 01, 2009, 12:56:27 AM »
Honestly, I haven't had the time to fully digest this thread...  That said, I was somewhat involved in the planning/strategy side of some FSO battles...  I agree 100% that GV battles need to be started from greater distances.  I would fully support FSO setups that required GV'ers to travel 30+ minutes before first contact.

Putting the GV'ers too close together completely removes strategy and tactics from the equation.  Give the GV guys plenty of time to form up and manuever, don't hamstring them with super tight timelines.  Screw the second "air life" in FSO scenarios, give the GV'ers a real chance at a real ground battle.

1st Lieutenant
FSO Liaison Officer
Rolling Thunder

Offline Strip

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3319
Re: Open Letter To AH Tankers - and others
« Reply #80 on: December 01, 2009, 01:37:24 AM »
Unless you cherry picked certain spawns you would likely need to rework each terrain.....

Strip

Offline 5PointOh

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2842
Re: Open Letter To AH Tankers - and others
« Reply #81 on: December 01, 2009, 02:06:47 AM »
I agree 100% that GV battles need to be started from greater distances.  I would fully support FSO setups that required GV'ers to travel 30+ minutes before first contact.

Putting the GV'ers too close together completely removes strategy and tactics from the equation.  Give the GV guys plenty of time to form up and manuever, don't hamstring them with super tight timelines. 
Exactly, the GV's need to travel to the battle areas. This would change and add a lot to scenerios for GVs.
Coprhead
Wings of Terror
Mossie Student Driver

Offline humble

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6434
Re: Open Letter To AH Tankers - and others
« Reply #82 on: December 01, 2009, 08:01:45 AM »
A film clip of the actual (and I believe only) "marking" of a tank is there for review. From my perspective there are a couple of relevant points.

1) there was no intent to use bombs as "markers", the primary targets were the hangers which were already down. The secondary targets were flaks and none were present.

2) Cobia had already determined that our tactics if engaged were to pickle our externals but retain internal ords. Figuring this gave us some additional margin of survivability without completely comprimising
our air to ground capability.

So...this ongoing argument that it was somehow "unrealistic" is flat out wrong given that I was precluded from dropping my ords on enemy tanks (which obviously was unrealistic). The traffic on range vox makes it clear that enemy planes are already attacking the fighter cap. The drop is clearly coordinated with the GV's on the hill and the tiger was not apparent to them until the drop occurred. given the restrictions in place I used the eggs in the only practical way that might have a tangible benefit to my side...given the option to drop them on the tank I can assure you they would have been a bit closer. The goal of a scenario is to give each player the opportunity to participate and have a positive impact on the outcome. Highly artificial rules of engagement restrict that and make it tougher for those impacted. From my perspective I'm still at low level with eggs and with enemy air but I can't engage what should be valid targets...meanwhile everything can and will engage me. Given that my sortie survivability is statistically marginal under those circumstances and the rules give me two lives to the GV's 4...plus my "kill" of a GV isn't really one and I'm at a lose in understanding the issue here. Worst case for the GV is he needs to wait to re spawn while for me the frame might well be over.

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

Offline USRanger

  • AvA Staff Member
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10325
      • BoP Home
Re: Open Letter To AH Tankers - and others
« Reply #83 on: December 01, 2009, 05:03:35 PM »
What if, oh, I don't know, somebody, were to build a terrain for GV-only mini scenarios that could take place in the months in-between the regular scenarios (air dominated)?  The terrain would be regular size 512x512 miles, with different areas of the map representing different climates/environments, such as desert, winter, ect.  Kind of a generic GV-battle-only terrain for the CMs to work with to create GV scenarios that take place just about anywhere they can think of.  Open plains, woodlands, small towns, our new large cities coming, fights for villages, bridges, factory areas, etc.  Basically a terrain that is specifically designed just for ground wars, with the layout taylored to just that.  I wonder who would be willing to make something like that?

Picture it in your heads & then give your thoughts.

Axis vs Allies Staff Member
☩ JG11 Sonderstaffel ☩
Flying 'Black[Death] 10' ☩JG11☩

Only the Proud, Only the Strong Ne Desit Virtus

Offline Hoffman

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 228
Re: Open Letter To AH Tankers - and others
« Reply #84 on: December 01, 2009, 05:06:30 PM »
Personally I think a GV oriented scenario ought to have a reinforced company for each side of vehicles, 2 flights of fighters and a flight of tank hunters.

No rules regarding air-ground, ground-air fighting.

Very basic break-down would be as follows:

Ground commander's vehicle
XO's vehicle
FAO's vehicle
1st, 2nd, and 3rd tank platoons.
Air defense platoon
Supply section.
Reconnaissance platoon.

High performance fighter aircraft flight.
Endurance/recon aircraft flight.
Close Air Support flight.


That gives you provision for about 40 players on each side, which can be a fairly nice little brawl.
A quick and easy setup if you will that could be run as a test-bed to see if a far more GV oriented scenario would be popular enough to merit a larger force.
This would also give you the opportunity to test to see just what effect a lower ratio of vehicles -> planes does, as well as give ground commanders a tactical consideration of sacrificing tanks to knock out enemy ADA before calling in the tank busters.

I'm probably just daydreaming over here of putting together something that operates even 1/10th like an actual mechanized unit, but the air war did evolve out of supporting the ground war.
Maybe if we put the aircraft into that role and limit their numbers a little more it would make them vastly more important.

If you can neutralize the ADA and retain your air cover, even if you're out of heavy ordnance 2 or 3 aircraft providing real-time data to the ground and tossing tracers towards enemy tanks could very well turn the tide of a battle.
I'd give two lives at 15 minute death-timers to the air crews, who in the meantime could be running as the supply section or such.


Add in a significant travel time for the ground forces to open up the intelligence battle and I think it'd be a lot more in-depth than the previous GV scenarios.
I'm thinking of DGS here where the scouts were perhaps the most important part of the German force.  Finding, reporting, and sticking with the American bombers allowed the German side to orient their strike force properly for the best punch possible.
Getting that kind of turn-out for a GV oriented scenario would be awesome, to have 2 or more companies operating independently and/or under the direction of a Bn commander.
But I think if we want to make this really successful we need to start out smaller and organise at least one smaller scale test-scenario to work out the kinks for organizing the ground fight.  Especially in regards to what terrain to use, how to spawn in, how to decide objectives, what vehicles, etc. etc. etc.

Offline humble

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6434
Re: Open Letter To AH Tankers - and others
« Reply #85 on: December 01, 2009, 08:13:02 PM »
The real issues you have specific to a "GV" scenario is that you have no artillery, infantry or anti-tank weaponry. This greatly limits things from realism perspective and contributes to the already severely misguided understanding of the "tankers" in AH. Your reinforced tank company would actually be operating on a very narrow front, far less then the terrain your proposing. What would be interesting is a recreation of the action around St Vith. As an example the firefly is a good approximation for the M-36 so you could recreate the actions of the 814th TD Battalion both as "task force Jones" and earlier vs the Fuhrer Begleit Brigade near Hunningen. This would allow a very realistic portrayal of multiple meeting engagements between relatively small units in a fluid environment with historically correct (with substitutions obviously) opponents.

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

Offline FireDrgn

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1115
Re: Open Letter To AH Tankers - and others
« Reply #86 on: December 02, 2009, 11:37:49 AM »
How about a scenario were gvs have to take the "same" town or base with in a scenario.    Planes and bombers have other objectives.   Did they ever change the draw limit.... if you get too many gvs in one spot its not going to work anyway.
"When the student is ready the teacher will appear."   I am not a teacher.