You wonder why Special Events are lacking here

[Tank-Ace]

Bombs, no. too accurate. I would be fine with strafers since you have SOME chance to kill them.

[Brooke]

Hey Brooke,

Check out the Macchi 202 as a replacement for the D.520. The specs are pretty close. I know... No canon on the C202, but the two 12.7 mm will make up for the single 20mm on Demoitine. 

(Image removed from quote.)

 

Interesting.  Maybe I should put in both the C.202 and the 109E (since neither one is a perfect match for D.520).

[swareiam]

Interesting.  Maybe I should put in both the C.202 and the 109E (since neither one is a perfect match for D.520).

This is true... 

[HB555]

Bombs, no. too accurate. I would be fine with strafers since you have SOME chance to kill them.

Scenarios are kind of like fun reenactments of actual events.

Actually, real bombs that were accurately dropped were a part of the original events. So...
We tried dropping "real bombs" and the tankers cried because they died. Then...
We tried dropping water balloons, and the tankers cried because they got wet. Next...
We tried dropping confetti, and the tankers cried because their tanks bogged down in the paper. After that...
We tried dropping kisses, and the tankers cried because we wore the wrong color lipstick. Finally...
We tried dropping hints about never having a major GV event and the tankers cried because they couldn't have tanks.

We have truly tried using vehicles in battles with only straffer aircraft allowed to in on them. That was also a fiasco.

Having "been there and done that" in several scenarios, it was thought best by a large majority of the players who regularly play in scenarios to semi ignore the ground side of most battles, and that is where we stand today on the issue of adding a major ground element to any scenario currently on the drawing board.

[Tank-Ace]

Sorry, no.

Problem is not with the GV'ers. If you want to bomb GV's, you'll probably have to put up with 5 lives per tank or so. If not, then use a straffer aircraft, and accept that part of the fun is having a challenge.

GV'ers signed up to fight other GV's, not hug hills and hope the bombs miss.



IMO, for air support with bombs to work (even with 5 lives per tank, that being for the entire 2-3 hr scenario), the fighters MUST be kept unware of the location of the GV fight untill they are needed, or they are unable to lift untill they are called. One or the other, if not both.

Both would be the most realistic.



Aircraft couldn't have won the war without soldiers to hold the ground, but the inverse isn't true. The soldiers on the ground wouldn't be unable to win the war if there were no aircraft. Its not at all unfair to tailor that specific part of the event so that its playable for both sides.

[gyrene81]

Its not at all unfair to tailor that specific part of the event so that its playable for both sides.

the only thing you got right is that it is not unfair to tailor the ground war so that it's playable for both sides...problem is, it's not fun for the other 90% of the players. the only way the 40 tankers interested in a scenario would be happy is if they had their own little corner of the map to play on while everyone else did their thing in the sky. waste of time and effort for the cm's to monitor.

[Tank-Ace]

Not true. 9-10 of those would fit your description, but the rest would be fine with Il-2's, B-25H's/Hurricane IID's, and an Hs 129 or Ju-87G-2 if we had it. But only about 5-10 would be fine with unrestricted bombing.

Reason is they actually have a fighting chance against straffer aircraft. I've actually killed Il-2's in my M3, and I think I've even gotten one with the SdKfz.



But if you want the aircraft to be able to affect the GV fight, then you have to give them the same power in return.

If the GV's take their objectives for the frame, the front is moved up, aircraft basings must be changed, etc.

This would give the flyboys a greater incentive to shoot down the enemy straffer aircraft, and protect their own. Bombers might have a shot at 3 runs per frame if the GV's do well enough, while theirs might be pushed far enough back so that only 1 run is feasible.

[swareiam]

Sorry, no.

Problem is not with the GV'ers. If you want to bomb GV's, you'll probably have to put up with 5 lives per tank or so. If not, then use a straffer aircraft, and accept that part of the fun is having a challenge.

GV'ers signed up to fight other GV's, not hug hills and hope the bombs miss.



IMO, for air support with bombs to work (even with 5 lives per tank, that being for the entire 2-3 hr scenario), the fighters MUST be kept unware of the location of the GV fight untill they are needed, or they are unable to lift untill they are called. One or the other, if not both.

Both would be the most realistic.



Aircraft couldn't have won the war without soldiers to hold the ground, but the inverse isn't true. The soldiers on the ground wouldn't be unable to win the war if there were no aircraft. Its not at all unfair to tailor that specific part of the event so that its playable for both sides.

   

Dude,

Their right... We tried it. It was a fiasco. Let that dead dog stay dead.

[B4Buster]

Tank-Ace, you really have no business arguing Scenario participation with these guys.

[Brooke]

Tank-ace, the good news is that, based on our experience trying all of those things already is that we have some other ways to proceed that we think will satisify most people.  I think it is to have scenarios with GV's where either (1) everyone gets some aircraft lives and some GV lives, and air attack of GV's is allowed or (2) people can sign up specifically for GV spots and stay in GV's, but the GV battle is completely separate from the air battle.

[oboe]

Gyrene yes I am disappointed.  Not by one instance but by many.  My history.  I've been involved almost
20 years...maybe more...memory gone.  I participated in AW in the early 90s when this was new.

The history of the airwar and the pilots drew me to flight simming then (as well as the aircraft)
If you've been around this game as long as I have you would notice a significant drop in numbers.
Why?  My theory.....this is nothing now but a first person shooter using WWII aircraft and tanks
as weapons as opposed to lasers etc.  There is no history involved in the MA which is nothing more
then a full melee arena to be found in quake or Doom.  Scenarios are and were the last hope of having
some true immersion.  Numbers down in scenarios too.  Why?  First person shooter fans want nothing to
do with immersion, planning and executing by plan.  They want the lastest greatest that can kill and get points
as fast as they can.  Sims involve and require immersion.  This is not a sim.  It has become a first person shooter.

When a new first person shooter comes out....they will gravitate there until they get bored with that.
First person shooter gratification is only temporary.  Numbers have decreased here.  Boredom?
In my case yes...and I'll bet in many other cases also.

And sweariam.....wait till you see of the registered how many actually show up.
Been there done that.

Hajo,

What is your opinion on the AvA?   I'm more drawn to that more realistic environment, but for some reason there are never very many people there when I log on.  Since my AH time is so limited (and my squad is more MA-oriented, than any other arena ('cept for Shuff in the MidWar) I end of flying in the MA.   

I *think* if we could get a couple of squads formed that would commit to AvA, we might be able to get it going regular again.  I just seem to rarely find a time when there are more than 1 or 2 players in there, and they seem to be running some interesting setups.  Trying at least.

I hope you do walkon to the scenario, sir!

[Melvin]

Could you not make a heavy cloud cover at ~1500 ft?

Something that would create the affect of "socking in" the area in which the ground war is to take place?

This might help to decrease the bomb accuracy, as well as areal identification of GV's.

[Tank-Ace]

If we had no icons for GV's, bombing would be a non-issue, because they would have to loiter for a bit to identify their target. Actually locating the target would be more difficult as well.

Brooke, I'm telling you, a single group of Il-2's and a single group of Ju-87 G's acting as GV-busters wouldn't kill the event. I would be fine with bombing aircraft as long as I have a chance to kill them before they kill me (the whole point of even participating in the event: ie, combat). Its when you get to the point that aircraft can kill a sizable percentage of the GV's that things get unfun.

IMO, aircraft should be able to effect the outcome of the GV battle, but shouldn't be able to win it unless the tanks they didn't kill completly drop the ball as well.

[HB555]

 
Seen this very zoo before. Think I'll pack it in and head for the beach.
I'll read the final report and save my fingers. 

[fudgums]

I want whatever tank ace is smoking.