FSO : Ground War

[AKKuya]

Has any CM ever though about a 3 frame event with ground vehicles only?  Just for a little diversion from the normal setup.

[ghostdancer]

The most I have ever done is 3 frames with both air and ground components. Haven't done only GV based FSO. Not sure what the majority people would think of it since some people like GVs and others don't.

[ImADot]

Not sure how the GV experience would be, but how about this...

Along with side preferences, squads can choose GV or Air.  Setup would be GV on GV battles (tanks, m16's, wirbles, whatever) in pockets around the map so not everyone is in one sector of the map.  You could have the air elements to accompany the GV groups - some tasked with ground attack and some to protect the ground attack planes and/or friendly GV forces.

Although it would be cool to have an air war going on overhead the GV battle, I'm afraid it would be a short night for GV'ers (unless you allow 2-3 lives).  A GV that stays alive for the night is worth more points than one that has re-spawned.

Make it either a slugfest or, as in the past, a capture-and-hold of a neutral base.  Planes would be forbidden to de-ack or take down town buildings.

[perdue3]

Air and Ground is a lot of fun. i remember WAY back in the day we did an Eastern Front FSO with both GVs and planes. It was fun for the GVs had a totally separate objective than the planes. The squad that took GVs were allowed a certain plane after their GV death. I liked the idea although I never was put in a GV. Doing this a few times a year would be ok but I do not think every FSO should be this way. And i do not think an all GV FSO would be good either.

[Spikes]

Although I like this idea, I think that there should be a rule or an incentive not to bomb GVs. That is the biggest turn-away for GVers is getting bombed.

[Krusty]

Yes, because the one thing that disrupted or destroyed more tanks and armor than anything else in all of WW2 (attackers/bombers) should be disabled in something intended to simulate the same type of combat?

The problem with GVs (forget about getting folks in them in FSOs, doubt it'll happen for a pure-GV FSO) is that they are unrealistic and unhistorical. The optics are far superior in-game to anything in the real world. There is very little variation to the trajectory -- other than a random aimpoint offset after you fire, every round at any range is laser accurate. There is not much fidelity with hit detection. There's almost no historical battlefields or environments.

GVing in Aces High is 99% spawn camping. When you try to force it into an event it often falls flat on its face.


Then there's the crybabies whining they got spotted by a plane! OMG! Haxx! Noes! I was killded!!!! Waah! (even if the plane was 5k away and never saw them)

[AKKuya]

I was thinking that the rhinewin map for 4 to 6 capture the flag assignments with players having 3 quarters in their pocket.  Each quarter representing one life.  Of course no planes.

Good to see some interest in this for a break in the normal FSO setups.

[Spikes]

Yes, because the one thing that disrupted or destroyed more tanks and armor than anything else in all of WW2 (attackers/bombers) should be disabled in something intended to simulate the same type of combat?

The problem with GVs (forget about getting folks in them in FSOs, doubt it'll happen for a pure-GV FSO) is that they are unrealistic and unhistorical. The optics are far superior in-game to anything in the real world. There is very little variation to the trajectory -- other than a random aimpoint offset after you fire, every round at any range is laser accurate. There is not much fidelity with hit detection. There's almost no historical battlefields or environments.

GVing in Aces High is 99% spawn camping. When you try to force it into an event it often falls flat on its face.


Then there's the crybabies whining they got spotted by a plane! OMG! Haxx! Noes! I was killded!!!! Waah! (even if the plane was 5k away and never saw them)

You don't GV much.

[Krusty]

I do on occasion. The 7k instant single ping hits are the norm on moving targets. In real life the optics would barely let you aim at something stationary 3k out for the better tanks. The Sherman would have a hard time hitting something outside 1.5k

In THIS game? That's well below lethal instant-death range.

[WWhiskey]

GV's and goons,, a heavy, cloud layer down low, with fog, the goons could land and spot from f-3 or f-5, make the clouds go away at 1.5 hours, if the aggressors have not captured it by then, they get bombed unless they have already got shot down!
 something similar to  Battle of the bulge   try to capture Bastogne with heavy armor under the cover of bad weather, fighters could fly above it, and the fog would fix the optic thing for Krusty
 the bad side is the frame rates in fog in anything,
 I missed it in AvA the other day, wish I would have made it !

[AKKuya]

Adding fog to the setup would take away alot of long distance shots. 

[Krusty]

You would think the same thing happens for trees and bushes, but no. Different systems see the "view limiters" in different ways. I'm kind of doubtful pea soup fog really helps. plus it just makes the rest of the event not very realistic (assuming you have an objective, you couldn't even see it with that kind of fog needed to reduce visibility to 3K or so).

[Viper61]

I'm for the GV battle concept as well.  However given the FSO main rule to have a fun event for all there would have to be a plane set as well.  Probably the best way to handle it is in the same manner as before with a separate GV battle space.  About 3 squads each is the right size I think.

Now as for the terrain and type of engagement:  Having GV'ed in both type of scenario's we have had in the past the GV battles that took place in the desert terrain (North Africa) lastest the longest and the guys had the most fun.  It went on for nearly 60 minutes with guys down to the last rounds and the base capture happening in the last few seconds.  A real nail bitter!!!  We had a base placed in the middle and dash to capture and hold until the H+60 horn was sounded.  It was nothing but maneuvering in formation and long range shotting combined with fire and maneuver.  Classic GV battle.

The GV battles in the woodland type of terrain turned into Armored assaults in which massed formations used the trees to close to within point blank range and then overran each other and the battle was decided fairly early by H+30 with most dead a few from each side holding their ground.  Not as much fun in the FSO enviroment of 1 life.

I'd like to see a GV battle space in every scenario where the terrain and setup supports it.  Our last FSO would have supported a GV battle space nicely with Tigers and Panthers matched against T-34's and T-34-85's.

[Nefarious]

I liked the Idea of open Gv's after T+60 like we did in Dec 2008. It just needs some modifications.

[Krusty]

Theoretically speaking, mind you (since I am against the general idea for use in FSO, but I'll debate it anyway) it seems to me part of the allure of GVing is the instant reup after the instant death. I think that tempers much of the frustration -- if you can just get THROUGH, etc, that impetus to keep pushing. With 1 life (or 2 or 3) that's heavily limited.

What about unlimited lives for GVs in a localized areas.... BUT only for a set time limit? I.e. you close the field after 30 minutes, or 45 minutes. If the objective is not had before then, the attackers lose, the defenders win.


Just a thought. It does require a CM's efforts, though. Easier to parse the logs -- no need to count lives.