You wonder why Special Events are lacking here

[ROC]

Tank,
You are being rather subjective on what you want, but crystal clear on the things you don't like.

I'm not very good at uncovering what someone wants from a list of what they don't want.  Nor can an entire event be designed around one persons opinion of what a small fraction of the participants want to see.

So, draft your entire event as you would like to see one ran, and let's see what it looks like.

This bits and pieces approach is pointless.

[Spikes]

IMO, if you would actually add some GV's, you could get some more registered. Its a lot easier to glorify a blitzkrieg across northern france, or Russia, than it is to glorify the aerial wars fought over each of the ground offensive.

No.

[Guppy35]

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.

So you want to pretend like airpower wasn't a deciding factor in ground combat?  There was a reason German armor tried to move at night instead of in daytime.  All those planes of 9th AF and 2 TAF were there to support the ground war.  They floated over the top with ground controllers in the tanks to bring them in as needed.

Sounds like you want a tank war but not really a historical scenario. 

[Big Rat]

I enjoy flying  and GVing, I'm obviously a better flyer, but I try the GV's none the less.  One possible solution would be to not count GV losses to aircraft as lost lives.  Aircraft would still be extremely useful for removing front line GV's to push friendly forces closer but wouldn't take away from enemy GV lives.  GV lives could only be lost to other GV's.  Aircraft lives could however be lost to GV's.  I think this would help in making a combined arms scenario actually work. 

 
BigRat

[Tank-Ace]

Guppy, theres always going to be a ballance between playability and realism. We already know how the historical battles turned out, so if you want 100% realism, whats the point of flying them?

[Brooke]

One possible solution would be to not count GV losses to aircraft as lost lives.

We've done this as well.

Folks, if you want to see what we have done in scenarios where GV's were a key part, you can read the rule sets here:

Stalin's Fourth:  http://www.electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/stalins_fourth/rules/main.htm
Tunisia:  http://www.electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200903_tunisia/rules.html
Red Storm/Krupp Steel:  http://www.electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200910_redStormKruppSteel/rules.html

[Tank-Ace]

ROC, to modify a setup (using the map from Red Storm to sub for a Kursk terrain), heres what I would do (assuming we have all nessecary Aircraft/GV's).

Axis
109F-4
109G-2
190A-5
110G-2
Ju-88
He-111
Ju-87 G-2
Hs 129

Panzer III L
Panzer IV H
Panther
Tiger I

Soviets
La-5FN
Yak-7B
P-40F
Yak-9T
B-25C
A-20G
Il-2

T-34/76
KV-1
M18 (to serve as stationary AT guns)

• Pilots get 2 lives eay per frame
• Bombers may not fly higher than 20,000 ft
• Bombers must level bomb their target, the exception being single B-25's, and Ju-88's, and dive-bombers (A20's inclued)
• Bombers may be based no closer than 75 miles from the front line (nearest enemy base)
• GV drivers get 5 lives per frame, with the exception of M18, Panther, and Tiger I drivers who get 3.
• only designated aircraft may attack GV's, fighter escort may be provided at the discretion of the CO
• attacks on vehicles from non-designated aircraft will result in an increase in objectives for that team

Axis Orders
Bombers to lift from A63 and bomb the troop training facility by V19
Fighters are to lift from A75 and escort bombers to V19.
ground attack planes are to lift from A63 and attack enemy vehicles
Fighters ar to lift from A63 and act as reserve bomber escorts, escorts for the attack planes, or hunt enemy attack planes at the discretion of the CO
Vehicles are to launch from V77 to neutral field A27 and eliminate defenders at the base.
Vehicles are to roll from V61 to neutral field A68 and eliminate defenders
Bombers are to lift from A48 and bomb the troop training facility at V38.
etc.
etc.
etc.

Russian orders would more or less mirror the German ones, save they would be defending (Kursk setup).

Note: M18's must take up concealed possitions and fire on targets as they appear. Relocation for the purpose of maintaining engagment with a target is forbiden. M18's may not advance, or serve in any capacity save that of towed anti-tank artillery.

Vehicles are forbiden from camping, camping being defined as possitioning oneself closer than 1500yds to the enemy spawn in a location that is outside of a 90 degree arc of fire FROM THE ENEMY SPAWN.




Progress of the ground assult will be determined by the success of the vehicles. If they secure their objectives, it will be shown by field ownership in the following frame.



Partial orders, the whole 'neutral base' (base would be owned by the country not representing Germany or Russia) would of course work better on a larger map. Just kind of shows what I'm talking about. Plane set could be altered, as could location of the GV fight.

[Spikes]

Do you think an M18 driver is actually going to not move at all?

[Easyscor]

...

This looks like a nice initial draft for an FSO's first frame, but not for a Scenario. For either one, it has problems with player enforced rules, especially the spawn camp rule.

[Tank-Ace]

True, but at least mentioning that its against the rules will help prevent it from happening.

Some will disregard the rules, yes, but some obeying the rules is better than everyone doing it because it doesn't say not to in the rules, right?

[ROC]

I thought I would actually see if there was something there besides just a vague wish for a better tank fight, but you put nothing into that effort so I am simply going to return the favor.  I had planned on taking something you presented and run a snapshot to start with to see if you could draw a crowd, but seeing how serious you took that effort has convinced me that it simply is not worth my time.

Hope you find someone to help you out. 

Tank,
You are being rather subjective on what you want, but crystal clear on the things you don't like.

I'm not very good at uncovering what someone wants from a list of what they don't want.  Nor can an entire event be designed around one persons opinion of what a small fraction of the participants want to see.

So, draft your entire event as you would like to see one ran, and let's see what it looks like.

This bits and pieces approach is pointless.

You are still vague on anything that does not revolve around the tanks, and quite frankly, it doesn't take any real creativity to come up with a neutral field for the tanks to drive to.  I also suggested the Entire Event, not bits and pieces.  I am not going to design event after event and try to see if this is what you meant, you had an opportunity to show us exactly what you wanted, and it looks like you did.  Great, you want a tank battle and not get shot.  We'll fit one in sometime if it fit's into the overall objectives of some event.

Other than that, you have one song, you sung it.  Thanks but I think I'm done with this one.

[Tank-Ace]

Still working on it. Right now I'm compiling a list of units that saw action at Kursk, and where they were they saw combat. After that, I have to figure out where exactly the best places for active fields to be, while keeping possition of units relative to eachother within the ballpark of historicly correct. I would think that you, being involved in this stuff, would be aware of the planning that goes into these.

Figured I would post that to show I was at least making an effort, but hey, if you wanted a finished product right from the get go, well sorry I disapointed you.



Edit: Can someone tell me how to get a picture of just the map? Is there a way to do that directly, or would I have to take a screenshot and then crop off what I don't need?

Decided to use the Germany terrain, and it would be helpfull to have a printable map to work off of.

[Easyscor]

For those serious is such an endeavor, at least download the current version of the terrain using the custom arena tool. The version of rhinewin posted above is out of date, and that's only the first of so many things that must be verified before a designer begins. Then when you've compared the terrain to the strat map on the wiki, the easiest parts are out of the way. Come back in three months when you have an event with no more then 2 or 3 player enforceable rules and you might be on to something, if you've done your testing. btw, If it's game play won't work in a custom arena, then it won't work anywhere else either.

[gyrene81]

   battle of kursk...that would be a 70% allies - 30% axis split. not much chance very many would agree to that. too many missing pieces to really put it together.

[HB555]

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,322768.msg4168712.html#new

An event with tanks and ground vehicles.