I think Brooke is trying to point out that we DO have GVs in many scenarios... However I'll counter with the following: I played in all those scenarios. There were significant flaws with DoB in regards to 100 planes overhead and any one of them being able to stop a base capture but rules technicalities prevented them from attacking. Krupp Steel had so much cying and whining by sour sport GV players that didn't want ANY interaction with aircraft (despite losing the air superiority battle) and calling out cheat accusations, rules violations, etc. They created a giant stir that really soured a lot of players on including GVs in scenarios.
And Stalin's 4th... well.. I think that's a special one. On the one hand, half the players did NOT want to do GVs. We sucked it up and did our part, but we were flying aircraft 2 frames and GVs 2 other frames. We were not dedicated (and maybe this is the way to go?) But this map had soooo much custom content it was much better for GV battles. Custom tiles, custom terrain, very well laid out bunkers, bridges, etc... It probably took a couple years to make that map. The map no longer works in AH because of several graphics/terrain updates since then. It really would require a remade map (and the guy that redoes it deserves sainthood for putting all that effort in.... TWICE!)
My point is: Yes, we have done some in the past... But there are many complicated issues at hand. It's not just like running an MA mission or anything. There are many complex interactions between the ground vehicles and the aircraft.... Catering to the whims of folks in GVs really isn't fair to the overall combat sometimes.
I guess it's a bit of a rant. If the folks that regularly would join in the GV fight were as mature as some of the folks that design the air aspect of it, we could have a hit on our hands. Other times we're just playing 2 different games that are mutually exclusive of each other.
