Relief of Bastogne

[TheBug]

Relief of Bastogne

AXIS:
Bf109g-6
Bf109g-14
Bf110g-2
Fw190F-8
Fw190D-9

Ju87d-3
Ju-88A-4
C-47

Ostwind
Panzer IV
Sdkfz 251
Tiger I
Wirbelwind


ALLIED:
P38-L
P47-D40
P51-D
Mosquito
Spitfire MkXIV
Typhoon MkI

B26-B
B17-G

Jeep
M-3
M-8
M-16
M4
Firefly

The map would be setup with just GVs in the bases around Bastogne and they would be not open to capture.  This would allow for the constant ability to wage GV battles.  Aircraft would be in the bases to the rear and north/south of Bastogne.  There would be a couple opposing bases that would also be not open to capture to allow for constant furballing.  The objective would be for the allies to capture bases to open a line to Bastogne.  The Axis would only receive troops at their original starting bases to represent their reaching the end of their supply line.  The main battle tanks would be the M4 and the Panzer IV with the other vehicles spread around the map.  Possibly setup up a couple bases with special fighters, bombers or GVs so if captured the respective side gets use of the aircraft.  That may require allow the Axis to have troops 1 base depth into the Allied lines.

Current Standard AvA settings would apply otherwise.

This is just a rough draft and just to illustrate how the Tank Warz setup is completely out of place in the AvA and with a little more creativity and less single-mindedness a well rounded setup could be created.



Objectives are a tough thing to accomplish in a 24/7 arena and takes a huge effort by the staff the way the current game is.  So in my opinion the best way to move away from the "just furballing" aspect of the AvA you need to entice a solid base of historical minded players/squadrons that would add an element of role-playing to the game.  Creating missions, bombing, GV, attack, fighter sweep... Whatever just in the spirit of recreating WWII aviation history.  To expect that to happen overnight is ridiculous.  There needs to be a consistent historical feel to the AvA to attract the players that will make the AvA happen.   The no icon idea, a very good one, was the spark to draw some attention.  So now that you have people looking Tank Warz gets thrown out there.  What do you think players that are attracted to historic gameplay are going to think about that one.  The setup serves a very select few and most people that have shown an interest in it have all admitted that they have never or rarely flown or in the AvA.  Now it's good that new people are showing an interest, but it is all for the wrong reasons.  As soon as the AvA goes back to a normal setup, they will leave.  This is a step backwards and that is the last thing, those that have such an interest in the AvA want to see.

I speculate Jaeger has almost no support from the AvA staff  or the AvA Development Group in running his juvenile setup "Tank Warz".  So it has got to make you question why he continues to push it?

[RTHolmes]

this looks great   ... and just the kind of thing I'd expect from the AvA.

really hoping that AvA starts to attract some numbers so I can fly in it, its empty during euro hours

[jimson]

this looks great   ... and just the kind of thing I'd expect from the AvA.

really hoping that AvA starts to attract some numbers so I can fly in it, its empty during euro hours

Try Wednesday 4 or 5pm US est, not sure what that is GMT, usually enough folks to make it a good time.

[gyrene81]

Show us the starting base layouts/locations for each side in the manner that you're proposing on the Ardennes map. Make sure your screenshot includes the vehicle spawn locations.

If you're going for historical, some of your equipment choices are out of place. The C-47 is out of place for the Axis since they did not use paratroopers during at Ardennes and supply was land based. The Allies used them only to drop supplies for the beleaguered troops in the area. Stuka, Mosquito and Spit14 would not be entirely appropriate either but that is just based on the areas they were used during that time period...depending on the AO you use and for what purpose they would be ok.

I'm a bit confused about the grand scheme of things on that setup. Is there an ultimate win teh warz strategic objective or is it just furball and blow stuff up 24/7?

[Oldman731]

I speculate Jaeger has almost no support from the AvA staff  or the AvA Development Group in running his juvenile setup "Tank Warz".  So it has got to make you question why he continues to push it?

You are mistaken.  As far back as I can remember - and as I hoped you would remember - the AvA staff has supported initiative by individual staffers.  We help each other by tweaking the proposals, but the last thing anyone wants is an intellectual strait-jacket that stifles creativity.  Our sense has been that, at the very worst, people will avoid the arena for one week.  This also occurs with plain-vanilla historic scenarios; for example, many people avoid any setup that features a Pacific plane set or a Russian plane set or even an early-war plane set.  Some of the very non-historic scenarios run in the past - the Japanese rocket and jet Okinawa map, or the Soccer Wars South American setup - have been quite popular.  You just can't tell.

I'm frankly mystified by the notion that running Tank Warz for one week is going to destroy the AvA.  Lord knows we've had many more serious problems with the arena than a title that some find offensive or a weapons selection that is not accurate to a particular year.  

- oldman

[TheBug]

Creativity within the real of the AvA description I am ok with.

[Reschke]

I gotta say that if you are going for the relief side then you need to eliminate the availability or possibility of paratroops from the Axis side.

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj89/win89/carter.html

[Chilli]

With new tools handed out from HTC, it may be possible to limit the loadout in C47s to supplies only    That is what I heard and haven't tested it yet 

[Dawger]

Any setup attempting to re-create a ground war needs to place aircraft in the manner they were in history. To put it simply the more valuable the asset the further away from the front when it came to aircraft.

Close air support aircraft would be closest, with second line fighters next and first line fighters behind them and bombers farthest away.

One of the things I would like to see the AvA get away from is the two closest fields furball and keeping the fighters back from the front would be a step in that direction.

It is a complicated proposal especially in a 24/7 arena with limited human monitoring from a CM. It would be made easier with scripting tools but those don't exist in AH but there is always hope.

[sparow]

This looks good... Let's let it mature a little bit more...

[gyrene81]

Any setup attempting to re-create a ground war needs to place aircraft in the manner they were in history. To put it simply the more valuable the asset the further away from the front when it came to aircraft.

Close air support aircraft would be closest, with second line fighters next and first line fighters behind them and bombers farthest away.

One of the things I would like to see the AvA get away from is the two closest fields furball and keeping the fighters back from the front would be a step in that direction.

It is a complicated proposal especially in a 24/7 arena with limited human monitoring from a CM. It would be made easier with scripting tools but those don't exist in AH but there is always hope.

I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one that would agree with you on that sir.

[Dawger]

I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one that would agree with you on that sir.

I can tell you from experience that when you setup aircraft like this it does cause lots of comment. People want the best fighter on the front line and they usually want the troop carriers up front too when in reality it wasn't that way.

[TheBug]

I gotta say that if you are going for the relief side then you need to eliminate the availability or possibility of paratroops from the Axis side.

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj89/win89/carter.html

First off I want to say this is a rough draft to illustrate a point not to generate a setup.  The C47 is there for the Germans not to be a direct representation of Fallshirmjagers but to be a representation of their supplied constrained yet very potent ground forces.  Even though the outcome of the Battle of the Bulge became quickly apparent, it still took quite a long time to reduce the salient.  So by having the C47 for the Axis and keeping any troop carriers for them limited to their starting bases, it allows them to have an equivalent force for counterattacking but limits their offensive capability.

Due to the limitations of the game, of course it is impossible to create a 100% historical setup.  That should never be the intent.  The idea is to create a palette based upon a historical battle/theater, make concessions due to game-play and then let the players paint the picture.

[Reschke]

I agree on the 100% accurate representation aspect. Looks like we need to see the actual terrain map to put these objectives together here.

[321BAR]

bug. great idea