This entire thread just fascinates me to no end. As the guy who inadvertently triggered this entire ruckus I've tried to read all the relevant postings and absorb the various viewpoints. My thoughts are as follows...
1) Obviously the seeds for this conflict predate this scenario and are a bit beyond my comprehension
From my perspective scenario's are a group effort and no single piece of the puzzle exists in a vacuum, this is entirely separate from any GV specific component. The friction between bombers, fighters, CAP vs Sweep vs escort all mimic these same arguments. In any scenario units will be interdependent, the entire concept that one unit (or unit type) can be insulated from interference is absurd. The entire purpose is "immersion" and a measure of historical accuracy, relating this to Tank on tank combat the reality is that planes killed more tanks then tanks did...end of story. This would be like me arguing that I'm entitled to a 1 on 1 fight in my A-20
....just not gonna happen in a scenario.
2) With no disrespect intended it appears serious command issues existed in the Axis camp and this is reflected in the 1st frame results IMO. I get the sense that the early setbacks caused some serious issues instead of being realistically planned for...
It was apparent to all that we would get air assets there 1st, but the VH's were knocked down by ground forces before the 1st plane even arrived. Allied GVers had an outstanding plan and carried the day based on that plan and execution.
3) The actual damage from Air to Ground attacks was pretty minimal and the psychological damage was extreme.
Moreys comments sum it up nicely. He and the rest of them (that bailed) were a beaten bunch before the 1st shot was ever fired. I fly right over him and he driving in circles with not a bomb crater near him. He was never damaged by an "illegal" attack (and no A-20 did any damage outside of the rules in any frame) but was obviously effected...
To me this is pretty simple, none of us function in isolation in a scenario. We are all interdependent and we all want to contribute in a positive fashion. In my experience a number of scenarios have had restrictions, normally technical in nature due to substitution issues (bomb load, weapon load out, manifold settings etc). Based on earlier scenarios a further restriction was imposed. From the axis threads my assumption is this was due to aircraft inflicted kills on GV's. My 1st thought is obviously...well if you don't kill or drive of the attackers the GV's will die (how is this different then bombers?), but I have no problem with the rules of engagement. However, what we have here appears to go beyond any logical interpretation of the actual rule itself. It looks to totally isolate the GV action from the overall battlefield. Not only is this unrealistic it's unfair to the rest of the participants who have every right to impact the course of action within the rules.
I'm all for GV's in future scenario's and I have no issues with reasonable restrictions to maximize enjoyment and game play. Pandering to the entirely unrealistic view of a handful of players is a bad idea however and about as realistic as a fighter pilot complaining about getting "ganged". Strips buffs got massacred in frame 2 because the escorts mistimed the hookup, we (221BAD) got massacred when F8's bounced us in frame 2, We lost most of a Yak squad when they got vulched on the rearm pad...this was all in the same frame....every unit gets smacked down during the course of a scenario, its the nature of the beast. So one group suffers a beat down and blames it (incorrectly it turns out) on "illegal" actions collectively takes it's ball and goes home?
My response would be simple, to the point and in keeping with FSO, warn em or ban em from the next scenario...don't coddle em and change the rules further to appease them. The moment that this issue came up I immediately put my film up. The reasoning was simple and straight forward.
1) Factual 1st hand evidence for the CM's to review for any infraction
2) Factual 1st hand context of intent and circumstance for the player base
The bottom line is simple, no A-20 damaged a single GV outside of dropping on legitimate targets at any time in any of the 4 frames. As for this specific event the film makes it clear that my intent was to mark the tanks location not damage it in any way. Given the lack of suitable legal targets and inbound german fighters the use of my external eggs for this purpose made sense at the time to me and was the only useful thing to do with them. The bottom line is that the tank was not known to jolly (up on the hill) until i pointed him out. In the context of overall game play isn't that my "job" here, to make a positive impact for my side? This all happened in the space of 10-12 seconds and is a random (unplanned) event that should have no broader implications beyond a single small ripple in a big pond. The fact that it did simply highlights broad misconceptions that need (IMO) to be squashed. Tank warfare in WW2 was bloody high attrition work for all but some of the Tiger (and other elite) units. The thought that GV's should somehow be insulated from the historical realities is just wrong. To win the war on the ground you need to at least fight to a standstill in the air. GV's without suitable air cover are no better then Buffs without escort...end of story. The issue here is planning and objectives not rules per se...
