Aces High Bulletin Board
Special Events Forums => Scenario General => Topic started by: TheBug on April 15, 2006, 11:17:17 AM
-
I was wondering if the developers of the next large scenario might consider adding the desire to do GV ops to the registration page. Make it possible so people could volunteer to drive GVs when needed, and allow the people that have absolutely no interest in driving a tank, or especially a halftrack the chance to select only aircraft as a ride. The foundation of this game is aircombat after all.
Now if the response would be, "Well we just wouldn't have enough people in GVs". I guess I really have to question the need to even include GV ops.
Without the knowledge that I will only be flying planes for the next Scenario, I will not even register. I feel bad not showing up in the current one, but after having registered for fighters first and Jabo second. Being assigned to a GV, is a complete waste of my precious freetime, and in my mind worthy of breaking my commitment.
Just thought I would throw my thoughts out, I may be in the minority. But I do intend them only as constructive criticism, I hope it it is taken that way.
-
Noted
-
I hear ya Bug and I gotta be honest in telling you I figured this would be a problem with a lot of folks too. I didn't start figuring on that at all really until I really started to get myself acquainted with the intent of the design. Prior to doing that I just figured on another air-based event like all the others I've been in for years. The design of this particular event pretty much steers you into using a lot of vehicles unlike just about any other I've ever been a part of. At least none on a scale like this. Its unavoidable(although I'm quite sure my opposition would like me to do just that). But I have done everything I could to keep things rotating so that everyone involved on my side got time in the air as well as the ground.
But it is a scenario. Personally, I've always looked forward to them as a means of broadening my horizons and taking a ride I wouldn't normally take outside of one of these events. Regardless of what you're in its all mission based anyway. The challenge is in using what you have in order to complete your mission and win the day for your side.
Its been said that one man's meat is another man's poison, but I would say in this case you're missing out on a really good time. That is unless you're on the axis side in which case I'm guessing you've prolly had better times. ; )
The door's always open if you want to come along with us.
Drano
-
I didn't formulate my opinion without ever actually giving GVs a chance in AH events. I have tried them in both the Kurland Scenario and a couple Snapshots. In fact I even gave them a try again in today's frame. Everytime the experience has either spanned from utterly boring to utterly retarded(in my opinion of course.) Today falling into the completely boring part. I got to shoot at a tent, yipee! And then drive for a hour and a half. Felt more like a truck driving sim.
I understand that it adds a different element to the game for some people and would never expect GV ops to be done away with in AH scenarios. But I personally hate them and would be willing to have only one life each frame as long as it was in a plane. All I am asking for is that chance.
One thing I do find funny is how many of the event representatives refer to the rotating of GVs and planes as being "fair". Don't ya think the wording of that is telling ya something right there.
Big to the guys that make these events possible, I am grateful for the efforts they put forth. Just really hate GV ops and would think it wouldn't be too difficult to accomodate the people that share that opinion.
Thank you for the replies!
-
I'm with you Bug, you are not alone
If i would know im going to drive 3 hour each week m3 i will never sign up for scenario.
I belive many who quit during frame after 30+ minutes driving gv's agree with me, its waste of our time and effort
-
I liked the GV part, but it is a totally different activity than flying, of course. The part I liked was the coordination aspect.
At any rate, what I've been thinking for some time is that it would be interesting if we could have the following in Aces High.
All of us like flying, but some don't want to be in ground vehicles or be gunners. However, there are plenty of people in the world who love ground vehicles and would have fun even just being a gunner. Look at WWIIOL, for example. The majority of that game is like our ground-vehicle action in Stalin's Fourth. Actually, in my opinion, the ground-vehicle action in Stalin's Fourth was even a lot MORE fun than that WWIIOL. This might seem astonishing to people who don't like GV's, but there are folks out there (myself included) who like more-realistic ground action, even if it means you are driving for a long time and if the fighting is brief.
The problem is that people who pay $15/month for Aces High generally want aircraft. People who pay $15/month for WWIIOL and who like ground action won't pay an additional $15/month for Aces High as ground action isn't that enormous a part of Aces High usually, and even if it were a great part of every scenario, scenarios don't happen frequently enough for a GV person to keep paying $15/month.
What I'd like to see is tiered accounts in Aces High. $15/month ongoing gives you access to everything, like what we have now. A lesser one-time fee would get you access to GV's or ships for two months (enough to cover one scenario), but no aircraft -- or maybe a lesser ongoing fee would give you access to GV's and ships on an ongoing basis. And it would be free for anyone who wants to come in and be a gunner, but free access wouldn't allow you to drive a GV, ship, or pilot a plane.
This is something that wouldn't happen quickly or perhaps at all. But if it did, it would give AH a bunch of players in GV's, ships, and maybe even a bunch of available gunners, which I think would enhance scenarios and the game overall.
Also, I've thought for some time that non-flying, non-driving command positions in Aces High would be an interesting way to get war gamers in who could enjoy the game from the point of view of battle strategy -- only instead of inanimate pieces, the units are real people.
-
Personally I do think GVs do give the scenario a depth.
Stalins Fourth wouldnt have been as great as it was w/o GVs.
That said I do think there has to be the option to register for "air only".
Personally when I fly a scenario I immerse my self into the role of a combat pilot who is part of a squadron that chip in their little bit of effort into the grand scheme of things. When assigned to a GV role it totally messes up the immersion. How on earth did that fighter pilot end up driving a tank?
I do the assignment though as team play is extreamly important to me so I dont let the team down due to my ego. But Im not happy about doing it partially because of the immersion but partially because Im totally useless in a tank, my mom would do a equaly good job in a GV.
I know there are peeps who love GVs and that there are people who love doing a bit of bouth. I definatly think the overall experience would be better if the ammount of GV activity planed for a scenario would be based on how the group that can see em self in a GV.
As I said in the begining the Stalins Fourth scenario wouldnt have been as fun without the GVs. But I know I would have hated beeing put into a T34 for 3 hours straight.
Tex
-
GV's naturally pull the combat to near ground level.
They remove the Alt warrior experience when limited to Fighter V Fighter experience.
The problem is always one of balance. Its not easy to solve, weapon sets spawn points, terrain geography and terrain hardnesses all have to merge to provide this balance along with gameplay rules and attrition values.
Infact WWII did not have many battles where air power was the deciding factor and even fewer where it was the sole point of the conflict. Certainly no Eastern Front scenario could be run (properly) without considering the conflict on the ground or at least the interface between airborne and ground based resources.
It would be neat if we could launch "drone" vehicles to do battle with each other whilst players get on with the air war. However thats (presently) not possible and even then many of us will be bombing and shooting up enemy drone vehicles to facilitate victory.
Whether in the air or the ground we can some times end up "chasing the action" and never finding it. Its not limited to ground vehicles ........... air born strategms may often require that units are not engaged as quickly as the players may ideally have hoped.
Some poor defences (or useless attacks) may find folk attacking nothing but objects, this is unfortunate.
This may be boring but it is not the fault of the vehicle/aircraft.
I do not remember any comments from the folk trying to capture 57/58 about it being boring.(origin base was 2 hops away)
When 58 fell there was much mutual back slapping on range and mission channels .............much as there may have been cursing for the other side...........emotions were running high!
I do remember seeing folk spawning/travelling halfway across a map to find out the battle at 72 was already over. This can be soul destroying but its much the same as calling 12 group Spitfires to help over Portsmouth in the BOB...............they get there too late, they are low on fuel and can only rtb.
-
Every scenario is going to have the HOT Rides and the less desireable rides - be it Air or GV or Support like C47's . . .
To me the best Scenario players are those willing to help out in any area even if the ride they got put in was not thier best.
Pearl is a good example of a scenario design where those that just want to fly fighters and not dive bombers or torpedo bombers can sign up for just the ZEKE group and fly for the IJN for every frame.
But that accounts for just 20-30% of the total number of pilots needed.
You still need pilots to man the other 70-80 of the planes to round ount the scenario. Those pilots willing to put the time and effort into making the other rides work and get the assigned jobs are just as important. Even more so to me. You can get a hot fighter jock to fly - but get a guy to spend hours coming up with the right technique to get in and drop a torp and get out alive is equally as valuable.
I had several GL's tell me that GV's were not thier squads strong suits. But almost everyone of them said they would do thier best no matter what they were assigned to.
I had to disaapoint one GL in frame #4. He thought it was his squads turn to start in the air since they were in GV's most of the previous frame. Due to the fact that we had to recapture the same fields he captured before I felt our best chance was to keep his unit on the ground at the start of the frame and have his group do it again - because they did it so WELL the last time.
The great comment I got from the GL was that even though they wanted to fly he would rather do the job and make sure it got done right even if it meant some of his pilots stayed in gv's the whole frame to help defend the bases they captured he would rather do that than fly and lose that base.
-
Stop equating people that wish to not ride GVs around as being against mission oriented gameplay. In fact I am somewhat offended Jordi by your repeated refferal to these people as "hot fighter jock" or "MA fighter jock".
That is total BS and I am certain that most participants of the Squad Ops, where there isn't GV ops, would find your summations off base.
The squadron that I fly in which has it origins traced back over 10yrs has always based it's foundation upon event flying. Whether it was the Scenario Lites/Target for Tonight/S3s of Warbirds or the Snapshots and Squad Ops of Aces High, events have been our foundation. To be referred to as a "MA fighter jock" is total BS, our squad has no organized time in the MA and I for one NEVER go into the MA. Your basis that a person's willingness to drive around in a GV is equated to their willingness to perform mission orientated duties makes you sound like a fool. Keep the GVs, according to some of ya they are a great hit, I'm all for letting people enjoy what they enjoy. But the scenarios of AH as of late have become over-burdened with rules and GV ops imo. With the state of GV ops in AH and the tactics implemented that to me has the biggest MA feel about the scenario. What's your basis of comparison?
As for ground ops in WWII, basing it upon the way the war was fought is just silly compared to what immersion there is within the game. Not to mention the fact that although ground forces were needed to secure objectives name me one sustained, successful offensive operation in WWII that didn't involve having air superiority if not supremacy.
I really don't feel that GV ops are necessary to produce mission orientated goals within a scenario, if that was the case you better warn the Squad Ops guys or better yet warn HTC about Combat Tour. I think with a little creativeness on the CMs part the ground war can be implied and left to a scale that supports the player base interested in it. I'd be glad to help if need be.
I am at a loss as to why allowing people to select only planes and no GVs is such a hard pill to swallow. It makes me question who's agenda you guys are actually serving, your own or the community. I'm thinking if it was the community none of this would sound so threatening.
I am probably going to regret making this post but I felt compelled to at least rebuke some of the statements made. But I intend most of my post to be a debate with all intentions of improving AH scenarios and all individuals for their efforts in making AH scenarios happen. And although I have great respect for Jordi and his excellent and I'm sure frustrating job as the Allied CO I chose to disagree with some of his comments. As a final note I was sincere in my offer to help in future events if needed as would many in my squad.
-
We all will never agree 100% on what is the best way to setup / run a sceanrio.
I did not mean to ruffle anyones feathers. It seems from my past experience that what I would call the "HOT" rides go first. P51's / FW's or 109's in a Euro Bomber Scenaro, Spits and 109's in a BoB scenario, USN Fighters in a PAC Scenario . . . The non-hot rides get filled last.
Personally if we wanted a very highly attended scenario it would have to be fighter vs fighter. We would have to beat people away with a stick ! But then I SUCK in fighters :) .
The way the "Fighter jocks" handle those planes put me in awe. I know my limitations and that is why I refer to them as "HOTSHOTS" and "JOCKS" - because they are that much better than me ! I did not mean for it to come across as a put down or an insult but as a term of respect.
The reality is that there are never enough rides in the planes most people want to fly - someone has to fly those other planes set for the scenario.
As I stepped neck deep into this current scenario I knew it would be a difficult time balancing the wants and needs of the registered pilots. I KNEW those that would be flying the fighters in each frame would hold thier own. I knew they would do a good job because that is what they are good at !
I have seen in some scenarios where some people just would not fly anything except plane XYZ. The good thing is most if not all of the pilots on our side were willing to help out the overall cause.
Like I mentioned - Some groups told me up front thier pilots were not good GV Drivers. But all in all they held thier own both on the ground and in the air.
but all in all I give a HEARTY to all who participate in any scenario.
-
As a basis for scenario discussion . ..
Could we create a Fighter only scenario ?
What would determine winning or losing ?
BoB comes the closest. But you still need people in bombers / Stuka's ?
-
Plane a Plane any Plane. I don't care if it's a bomber, fighter-bomber or fighter. Just not a GV, willing to do whatever is needed in a scenario knowing beforehand that it will be a plane.
Secondly if ya want to shed the MA feel, point your guns at the people that think multiple lives is a good thing.
And lastly I don't judge value of an event upon it's attendance.
-
You see that is the thing . Some say they want FIGHTERS ONLY, others say ( Like you ) ANY PLANE will do ( Which as a CO i really appreciate ! ) , other say they are only good at Bombers . . .
The problem is you do not know how many of each type are going to show up - so how do make the plane set ?
Now one could ask people to register for a scenario and select PALNE Only or Any plane or Plane and GV or Gunner ( plane or veh or ship ) . . .
Then design the scenario around the expected attendence ?
-
I think a choice not to be in a GV in a flight sim scenario isn't too much of a stretch. Beyond that people sign up under the premise that they will be placed according to their preferences but nothing guaranteed.
Don't you think you're carrying it a bit overboard? It isn't like scenarios were invented by this one.
Just critique this idea alone-- Same sign-up as last scenario but an option for individuals to check a box selecting no GVs at the cost of being allowed only one life. Would it really cause anymore fuss than your imagination concocts?
Convoy sunk bringing in supplies to Tobruk--Germans able to penetrate defenses.
Train or supply base or bridge not taken out--Panzer Divisions allowed to counterattack Normandy beachheads push troops back around Caen.
Or play both those back with the Allies being successful and allowing their lines to advance.
I think putting that imagination to better use would make for a much more immersive mission orientated scenario, than 25+ vehicles racing around trying to be the one to blow up a tent.
Don't ya think?
-
Originally posted by jordi
You see that is the thing . Some say they want FIGHTERS ONLY, others say ( Like you ) ANY PLANE will do ( Which as a CO i really appreciate ! ) , other say they are only good at Bombers . . .
The problem is you do not know how many of each type are going to show up - so how do make the plane set ?
Now one could ask people to register for a scenario and select PALNE Only or Any plane or Plane and GV or Gunner ( plane or veh or ship ) . . .
Then design the scenario around the expected attendence ?
Jordi many not show up just beucose of putting them in tanks......, many quit during frame after first dead in gv's.
And is better to give option then set people up, they sign up for fighters and land as tanks drivers.
In first frame on Stalins , i choose to fly goon insted of driving tank.
Also, we play aircraft only scenarios many years, dont tell me there is not possible to do plane vs plane scenario, cuz its not true.
-
First let me say that I agree - there were a lot of GV's to be used in the scenario and that in and of it self keep a lot of people away.
Just critique this idea alone-- Same sign-up as last scenario but an option for individuals to check a box selecting no GVs at the cost of being allowed only one life. Would it really cause anymore fuss than your imagination concocts?
Going off of the Stalins Fourth registration process where people had a 1st and 2nd choice of Fighter, Jabo, Bomber, Vehicle or No preference . . .
70+ pilots choose a Fighter as their 1st OR 2nd choice.
Of those 70 just 3 said they would also do Vehicles.
45 of of the 70 selected Fighter as their 1st AND 2nd choice.
26 choose Bomber as thier 1st OR 2nd choice.
So I have my 20 bomber pilots and almost 70 pilots who will get 1 life in a fighter.
Overall just 14 selected Vehicle as a 1st OR 2nd choice.
So as a CO if I needed to field 40-50 pilots in vehicles in a frame then a lot of people are not going to be happy if they expected to get thier choice of just flying some type of plane.
My point is - ANY Scenario design is going to have rides ( be it GV's or Bombers or 110's or P38's or .... ) that some people may not like or want.
I am glad that in most scenarios I have been in I have been favored to have pilots who if / as needed took those rides and did their best.
The Stalin Scenario was originaly designed for 75 AXIS and 150 ALLIED. I knew from day one that we would not meet those numbers BECAUSE a lot of GV's were involved. I suggested we cut the numbers in half and up the total reg numbers as interest allowed. That worked ok. Even then we had around 70% of registered pilots make it on frame day. WE had another15+ walkons / invitees to help fill out the ranks.
-
Are we talking about Fighter vs Fighter scenario below ?
Originally posted by TheBug
Convoy sunk bringing in supplies to Tobruk--Germans able to penetrate defenses.
Jordi - Sunk how ? Torpedo planes, Dive Bombers, Jabo ? Defenders up from Carriers and have to land on them ?
Train or supply base or bridge not taken out--Panzer Divisions allowed to counterattack Normandy beachheads push troops back around Caen.
Jordi - How - MED or HVY Bombers ? Jabo ? Any ground defenders protecting those bridges ?
Or play both those back with the Allies being successful and allowing their lines to advance.
I think putting that imagination to better use would make for a much more immersive mission orientated scenario, than 25+ vehicles racing around trying to be the one to blow up a tent.
Don't ya think?
Again - all that I am saying is that in ANY Design you are going to have the following . . .
1. Some People may not register at all becuase the plane they really like is not in the plane set. That is fine - the next scenario may have the plane they like.
2. Some people who register and say they are only going to do certain things. If a frame has them doing something they do not want to do they may not show up at all for that frame. As a CO I just hope they tell me so I can plan around the reduced numbers.
3. The MAJORITY of people are more than willing to do what is needed to help out thier side. Some just want to help out where needed - others want to try new things - others do it because that is what they signed up for. As a CO each of these pilots I appreciate a lot because they are the ones that will help fill fill in the holes and make the plans work.
-
Originally posted by ramzey
Also, we play aircraft only scenarios many years, dont tell me there is not possible to do plane vs plane scenario, cuz its not true.
If you mean plane vs plane being just fighters and no bomber / jabo part to it - go for it. Almost every sceanrio I have been involved with dealt with more than just fighter vs fighter - it included somethingelse - bombers, jabo, land targets, ships, GV's, ect . . .
I am sure you can find some historical time period to base it on. Come up with some sort of scoring system to figure out who wins - most kills ? least landed ? . . .
GO FOR IT !
:)
-
Have you notice since gv's start take part of scenarios numbers of people inolved drop to 50%?
Also BoB allways have good numbers, but HTC care not enough to bring som new planes to fill empty spots.
Rangoon, Malta, Big Week, Iwo Jima, Coral Sea, Midway, Ruhr
all of them had greater numbers then any of gv's involved scenarios. And where more fun.
HOw come FSO have bigger number then any of lastest scenarios?
I dont remember FSO with GV's, i remember SSO with gv's, look what's happend when you force people to drive gv's.
-
come on guys .. the Finn's wanted a re-creation of there greatest battle .. They worked 1000's of hours into the map and setup ... they deserved a gv/AC battle and you guys gave a great set of frames to them.
I think the numbers were close to what was expected
... Pearl is coming and you guys will get all sorts of plane/gunner action again .
then we'll mix it up with some new and greater attempts of some great battles/ events from ww2 ..
I myself have gotten bolth the weak rides and the great ones thruout different scenario's, sometimes i can make them work other times its just tough to stay alive .
-
No one forced anyone to drive anything. You just said yourself that people quit because they had to drive them, that's a choice.
This event used ground elements. Most sign for events to experience something other than routine, and this event was far from routine.
The next event will be an invasion of Japan, with an unreal amount of fleets on yet another new terrain. I assure you, there will be players who complain about having to fly a torpedo plane.
The event after that should be a High Alt Europe Bomber campaign. There will be cries of Alt monkies and we should limit how high the bombers can go cause it's too hard on the fighter pilots and takes too long.
After that, Pearl Harbor, and again, we may have some life limits. Say for example you get 2 fighter, bomber, and you can get ground vehicles for defense to keep the base alive through the frame. There will be players who use their lives in the planes and leave. There will always be something to complain about, and plenty of people to do the complaining.
Don't take this as I don't understand and appreciate what is being said, I do. If everything Ramzey wanted was implemented, someone else would be complaining, if Everything TheBug wanted was implemented, someone else would complain about that also. We do the best we can, trying to balance the event as we design it, why do you think we don't design these things publically on the open forums? We'd never be done.
Yes your comments are noted, and I can guarantee that Each and Every one of the comments and critiques have been addressed in one event or another, but it is not possible to address them All in Every event, there are too many variables.
That's just reality. But that doesn't mean you don't have a voice, trust me, all of these points are valid, some are based on insight, others are based from speculation and not knowing why some item or another decided the way it was.
The Bottom Line of Karelia was to produce an event that kept players involved for the Full 3 Hours of each of the 4 Frames, that is Not an easy task, and one that doesn't lend itself to a single life event. Most players that participated Enjoyed it, those that quit missed out, but that's their loss. This event appealed to a particular group, other events will appeal to a different group. That's just human nature.
Hope you enjoy the next one, that's where My attentions at now, Stalins was last week :)
TheBug, hit me on email, I'd like to get your thoughts on a project I'm working on.
-
Without having read all of this thread yet:
You cant make EVERYONE happy.
Too much GV in this Scenario? Maybe, but i gotta admit - me, the fighter only (unless im really wasted) actually enjoyed the change of pace. It roused my interest of mybe even taking up a GV in the Main and see how ill do there. For now im mostly a "toolshedder" in GV.... anything that knows what its doing and shoots back has me returned to tower before i can even say "hello".
As far as i have understood scenarios, they are supposed to recreate historical RL battles. This one was a bit more gound bound. The next one will be different. Yes, it would have been nice to know beforehand that you would probably spend at least part time in GV (no matter if you signed up for fighter/jabo only), but im hazarding that even the COs didnt know how this one would turn out strategy wise untill last minute.
My opinion: This was a fun scenario that i thouroughly enjoyed during the frames (Im not particularly fond of the decisions that had to be made between frames - IMHO the spawn limitation rules were just too complicated, impossible to get 160 people, including new players and walkons to follow them ALL). I very much liked the design and the Map. Thanks to all involved for putting that much of your freetime in!
-
Originally posted by TheBug
I think a choice not to be in a GV in a flight sim scenario isn't too much of a stretch. Beyond that people sign up under the premise that they will be placed according to their preferences but nothing guaranteed.
My thoughts exactly. It would be nice to have this option. Let them choose plane or GV with the understanding they could end up in ANY plane if they choose to fly.
I rather fly c-47s all day any day than be stuck in a GV. Not that I don't appreciate the fact that many like GVs and are quiet good in them. Some like myself just have no desire for them.
And no one is suggesting a fighter vs fighter scenario, or even doing away with GVs. All we are asking is for an option. If GVs are so popular this shouldn't be a problem.
I didn't start flying scenarios or events yesterday. I remember Ruhr, Midway and countless others quiet well being a huge success.
I commited to four frames of Stalins and I flew or drove in every frame, so no, not eveyone quits when assigned a GV, but was it fun? For me personally, no, most of it wasn't. Will I sign up for the next scenario? If it requires I drive a GV, then no I won't.
With a plane only option I would not hesitate to sign up.
Skyfoxx
-
I am new to participating within Special Events in AH.
While I have yet to register for a Scenario, I agree with some of the previous posts, in that I personally would like a Choice as to whether I was going to participate as a Pilot or as a Vehicle Commander. Perhaps the Registration process could include the Choice between Flight only (all frames), Mixed GV and Flight in alternating Frames, or GV only (all frames), for the Scenarios that have a need for GV's.
I tend to agree with TheBug's idea, about having the choice to fly, even with reduced lives within a particular frame. As Tex Stated in an above post, there is an Immersion Factor within a Scenario, Snapshot, FSO, or any Special Event, that make them enjoyable and give us the desire to participate.
With that said, Yes, I have attended a GV only Snapshot, as well as a few Flight Only Snapshots. I did have fun in the GV snapshot, knowing it was only going to be a one time thing, and limited to only one or two hours at the most. In that Snapshot, I found out early I was lousy at Tank Fighting, but found a sense of purpose using my lives in an M3 to resupply those that Could Fight in a Tank. Without finding that sense of purpose and an immersion in accomplishing something, I am sure I would have logged off, and likely ignored any further events that put me into a GV.
As Stated Above, I am new at Scenarios. I have recently found a Squad ( 880 FAA) that has an intense desire to participate in Special Events. I intend to participate in any Event My Squad does, as long as Real Life permits me to.
I know that the Planners, CM's, and Frame CO's do a LOT OF WORK in order to bring us something to enjoy and participate in, and Hope you see My Opinions as Constructive, from a New Attendies, point of view.
-
Have you notice since gv's start take part of scenarios numbers of people inolved drop to 50%?
The first Aces High Scenario had a large tank component, North Africa / Med.
After that Norway, Big Week, BoB, Midway and Sicily, Ruhr, Guadalcanal didn't. Okinawa, Niemen and Kurland did. Those events with the average lowest number of drop outs / players were the Eastern Front events.
These by necessity involved ground vehicles to a much larger degree. You can't build an eastern front event around aircraft alone. I hate GVs myself. In fact during Stalin's Fourth my group, FAF-5, only were in our tanks in frame 1 and only for minutes compared to our time in the air. I understand that for the average scenario player they sign up mostly to fly fighters. Bombers slots rarely fill out and the same goes for ground vehicle. Thus the concept of the the 3 slots per flight, Fighter, Bomber/Jabo, Ground Vehicle.
I brought up on the day registration opened that the registration didn't give those interested in registering enough choices, especially compared to past scenarios. Players are far more likely to participate fully if they are given the option to pick their primary ride.
However, the 3 slot concept is still crucial to most scenarios. I wouldn't have wanted to spend entire 3 hour frames in GVs either. However, the decision to keep folks in GVs all frame isn't so much a part of the scenario design as it is the strategy adopted by the COs. In Stalin's Fourth the fact the allies kept their GVs rolling all frame is what allowed them to 'win'. Without a large GV component Stalin's Fourth would have been impossible. With out the 3 slot concept there would have been very few in ground vehicles and the scenario would have been pointless.
As for multiple live events these are a necessity in order to sustain an event especially when the player numbers are relatively low. In many of the frames our 190s knocked down entire flights of fighters and bombers in the first hour or so of a frame. Combat on this map came fast due to the size of the map. In bomber scenarios multiple lives are for the most part un-doable given that most of these are on larger maps with much longer flight times. On small maps where combat in concentrated numbers would drop off so fast that the event would have petered out long before any objective could have been reached.
So with no GVs, no multiple lives you are left with nothing more then a Squad-Ops. Way back when my squad was one of the first in Squad-Ops. In fact IIRC correctly out of the first three I ended up Co'ing 2 of them. I have Co'ed many a ToD / SO and have planned, Co'ed or served on the command staff of almost half of the AH events. The planning that goes into just one frame of a scenario is far more complicated then any ToD/SO.
All that said I think the objective of those that plan and command scenarios have to think in terms of fun first, winning second. Is it fun to have guys spend entire frames or multiple frames only in GVs? I can only answer that based on my own experience and say no. I make no criticism of how either sides command planned the event. The allies had a solid plan that led them to victory. I can only hope the average allied player was able to find the same level of fun I did. If some of you who spent long periods GV'ing are unhappy I think that is valid but it is not possible to have an event like Stalin's Fourth with out GVs.
If Combat Tour is ever released, and HT still plans on a GV AI, then maybe future scenarios can afford to open up GV slots / flight only for the few that don't mind GV'ing and the rest could be filled out with AI. Same with bombers.
Wotan
-
Originally posted by Bruno
I think the objective of those that plan and command scenarios have to think in terms of fun first, winning second. Is it fun to have guys spend entire frames or multiple frames only in GVs? I can only answer that based on my own experience and say no. [/B]
I couldn't agree more as I spent about 5 hrs and 30 mins of my total 6 hour (frames 1 and 3) scenario time in a GV or manned ack. The 30 mins or so i got to fly a 109 was truly fun, manned ack time just fun/ok and the majority of time in a GV total boredom. I was a part of the design team, just a sidekick really, and objected the strong emphasis of GVs in this scenario very early in the concept phase, but the majority of the design team had a strong view and positive feel about the GVs. So the result was that SF4th had lots and lots of tanks driving around (in a flight sim :rolleyes: :) ).
I hope that the event was fun for most of the players, but when 90% of frame 3 was spent without seeing a single enemy and shooting down some bridges I would have to lie to say that I was sorry when RL prevented my participation to the frame 4. The lesson that I learned from this scenario was that one should sign to fly the bombers when GVs are around, since bombers will at least see some of the action and most likely will be actually doing some flying instead of sitting in the bushes :huh
-
To me the biggest difference between scenarios and Squad OPS is that in Squad OPS you are certain to get into a battle ( Unless the CO's really blow the set plan given to them by the CM's ). In a Scenario you never are really sure when and where the fight might take place.
To me this adds to the intensity of the scenario . . . As we head to the next base or target or ship . .. what will we find ? Will the enemy be there ? Will they be somewhere else I am not expecting them ?
The bad part is that there will be times when some people are going to sit around and not see any enemy.
We had a couple of guys sit out at V58 the last hour just to make sure the AXIS did not make a mad dash at the end to try to capture it.
-
I think what we are ALL trying to say is we need to offer VARIETY.
Be it different types of Scenarios or variety within Scenarios.
In the end each scenario will be of more interest to some and less to others.
-
The lesson that I learned from this scenario was that one should sign to fly the bombers when GVs are around, since bombers will at least see some of the action and most likely will be actually doing some flying instead of sitting in the bushes
That's why I made sure to join Kuhlmey since we had the only Stuka / Jabos for the Axis :p
In Frame 4 we (FAF5) ended up with 75 kills and 47 objects destroyed and didn't sit 'in the bushes' at all... The only GV action we saw was in Frame 1 so my experience through out the event was positive and I had great fun. If I had to spend the event as a 'virtual truck driver' then I guess it would be some what different.
I wonder if the reason GVs are so universally disliked by scenario types is due to how poorly they are done in AH over all. In other games where tanking is more accurately modeled they can be some what fun. Still touring the back roads of Finland maybe appealing in real life, in the virtual world it can get old quickly.
-
Originally posted by ramzey
Rangoon, Malta, Big Week, Iwo Jima, Coral Sea, Midway, Ruhr
all of them had greater numbers then any of gv's involved scenarios. And where more fun.
Wrong...........
Niemen not only started with the 2nd highest numbers of any AH scenario (to Midway I think) it ended with the highest numbers by a significant factor.
ie a scenario with a very significant gv element which RETAINED a higher player interest than any other scenario.
The greatest single factor in player drop off is BOREDOM followed quickly by LOSING. GV's do not cause this by them selves........one sided gameplay set ups or poor strategms cause this.
-
Niemen not only started with the 2nd highest numbers of any AH scenario (to Midway I think) it ended with the highest numbers by a significant factor.
I quit Midway after the first frame and it was aircraft only. Flight times were too long and I was bored to tears flying an A6M2 while being ordered 'not to enage the enemy' every time we found them. When we finally rtd'd B17s were hitting our carrier and I ended up ditching due to no fuel and the carrier doing donuts to avoid getting bombed.
In Niemen the last two frames had almost 100 allied no shows in each frame. I was on the staff with Fariz so I did no GV'ing at all and thought Niemen was a great event. In Kurland there were almost 100 allied slots left open and the team balance ratio was so upset that it made Allied victory impossible. We had to re-do victory conditions on the fly. With Kurland we tried to follow Niemen's example in terms of gameplay rules except that we decided to put a tighter limit on the total number of GVs rather then allow the VHs to be destroyable.
The thought being that we didn't want folks being bored to death on long travel routes if and when they encountered a base that had its VH killed. We decided on a lower limit on the number of tanks instead. We did have destructable bridges and the original idea was to create fordable rivers but this proved to be a problem and ultimately we limited th enumber of bridges and left out all but he main rivers.
Ulitmately, Kurland was a failure due to the lack of general interest especially on those who typically fly for the allied side. Those low numbers and the quality of Axis pilots made the event very one sided.
For the most part I thought Stalin's Fourth was well balanced from my view as an Axis GL. We had our opportunities but fell short.
-
Originally posted by Bruno
I wonder if the reason GVs are so universally disliked by scenario types is due to how poorly they are done in AH over all. In other games where tanking is more accurately modeled they can be some what fun. Still touring the back roads of Finland maybe appealing in real life, in the virtual world it can get old quickly.
In my opinion yes, I don't hate WWII tank battle or simulations, if there were actually any good ones :-) And although I feel they are poorly done in regards to scenarios, I think HTC implemented exactly to the level needed for the game they are trying to sell.
But I'm open to admit maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm in the minority, maybe the MA feel in scenarios is something the majority desire. I prefer creating events that foster a community of historical based game players, to the fullest extent the game allows with still maintaining gameplay. I see AH events bending themselves to "fit the crowd". Maybe for the good of the many that is the way to go, but I'm not gonna deny it saddens me and think back to the "hardcore" ;) days of Warbirds.
-
Or the hard core days of AIR WARRIOR . . .
I think it was 1999 we had Scenario frames from different scenario groups 11 out of 12 months !
But I think the CANVAS we have to paint on in AH is so much better and broader than we had back in AW.
To think what we can with the terrain and fleets that move for a PEARL scenario just makes you wonder . . .
-
Originally posted by TheBug
I see AH events bending themselves to "fit the crowd". Maybe for the good of the many that is the way to go, but I'm not gonna deny it saddens me and think back to the "hardcore" ;) days of Warbirds.
I think it's the opposite. What you see is AH events *not* bending themselves to "fit the crowd." If they bent themselves to fit the crowd, there would be no GV's because the crowd doesn't like to drive GV's. Also, with GV's it is more realistic, not less realistic. I think it is more accurate to say that, if you want more realism, you thus want GV's in at least some scenarios -- you just don't want to be one to drive any of them.
That's fine, but let's not kid ourselves: really almost no one wants to drive vechicles in preference to flying aircraft. If you have a scenario signup were the only people in GV's are those who checked the box "if needed, I'll drive GV's", very few people will check that box, even if they truly wouldn't mind doing so if needed. The reason is they know that anyone who checks that box will be driving GV's and that everyone who checks the box "I'll quit if I have to drive GV's" will get all the plane slots. Most people's attitude toward that set of choices will be "screw that -- I'm not going to lump it so that someone who won't ever lump it gets to fly a plane instead of me."
To me, the solution appears to be the following, as was stated above: (1) since you can't please all of the people all of the time, have a variety of scenarios (some with GV's, some without, some with lots of bombers, some with few bombers, some with no alt limits and high altitudes, some with low altitudes, some with Zeros, some without, etc.); and (2) when you do have rides you *know* very close to no one is going to prefer (basically GV's, LVT's, PT boats, C-47's, and gunner duty), entice people with some sort of tradeoff (one box with "I'll fly Zeros and no ground vehicles" or "I'll fly Betties and no ground vechicles" or "I'll fly Ki-84's and some ground vechicles", etc.) and make sure there is a mechanism -- in the rules -- that forces rotation through the undesirable rides (so that there is no competitive disadvantage to providing rotation).
Stalin's Fourth satisfied #1. It gave us another realm of variety and things we haven't seen before in scenarios. I loved it. I loved driving the GV's. (I even like WWIIOL, and that is much more tedious in so many ways than GV driving in a scenario.) Stalins Fourth tried to satisfy #2 but only partially accomplished that, at least on the allied side. We tried having plans for groups to do half a frame in GV's and half flying, but you just can't all that effectively switch in a frame. We tried having some dedicated to GV's and some to flying, then switching next frame, but we needed enough GV's that some still ended up doing more than 50% in GV's. We could have put less people in GV's, but there was a competitive advantage to make sure we had a substantial number of GV's, so that's naturally what we did.
The other thing we already knew but had reinfoced is that you can't rely on player enforcement of rules beyond anything but the simplest thing (like you get one life). The spawn rules were not hugely complicated, but they were complicated enough that you're 100% certain to get violation of them in a scenario of 100+ people. Add to that the fact that you don't know about the violation until after the frame is over (so you can't during the frame "retake" a base that you took with some violation that later would otherwise negate the capture), and you've got a recipe for huge amounts of trouble and arguing.
Stalin's Fourth is a great and impressive scenario -- jawdroppingly impressive in so many ways. I hope we run it again -- with a couple of small tweaks, with GV's still included, and in a mix of many other scenarios of all sorts of different types.
-
Originally posted by jordi
Or the hard core days of AIR WARRIOR . . .
I think it was 1999 we had Scenario frames from different scenario groups 11 out of 12 months !
But I think the CANVAS we have to paint on in AH is so much better and broader than we had back in AW.
To think what we can with the terrain and fleets that move for a PEARL scenario just makes you wonder . . .
Agreed!!
-
Originally posted by Brooke
I think it's the opposite. What you see is AH events *not* bending themselves to "fit the crowd."
Sorry but you sound like the crowd to me, no disrespect intended.
Just to be clear and I'm not implying you claimed otherwise. I never at any point requested the exclusion of GV ops in an AH event. My request is that people have the choice to chose never having to be in a GV at the expense of having only one life. That is it, period. But also in no way do I support the believe that adding GVs adds realism to a scenario, actually I believe I expressed the exact opposite.
The observation/opinion that AH events have taken an "MA feel"(for lack of better slang) compared to events of the distant past from this sim and the ones that preceded it, is as I said an opinion. And opinions being that, that they are, can not be wrong.
-
Originally posted by TheBug
Sorry but you sound like the crowd to me, no disrespect intended.
The crowd (i.e., the majority of players) does not want to drive GV's. I advocate some scenarios with GV's. I don't know how that would sound like the crowd to you.
Just to be clear and I'm not implying you claimed otherwise. I never at any point requested the exclusion of GV ops in an AH event. My request is that people have the choice to chose never having to be in a GV at the expense of having only one life. That is it, period. .[/QUOTE]
I'm clear on that.
But also in no way do I support the believe that adding GVs adds realism to a scenario, actually I believe I expressed the exact opposite..[/QUOTE]
Clearly, having GV's is more realistic for a scenario that is emulating a battle that had substantial GV involvement in it. Stalin's Fourth is such a scenario. I don't understand why you would express the opposite.
And opinions being that, that they are, can not be wrong. [/QUOTE]
Some opinions can be neither right nor wrong. "The color green is nice" is an example. Other opinions can be wrong. If one has an opinion that 4 / 2 = 17, one's opinion is wrong.
Your opinion that you don't want to drive ground vehicles isn't wrong. Your opinion that it would be better if people had more choice isn't wrong. Your opinion that having GV's -- regardless of the scenario -- is less realistic is, I think, wrong.
But it doesn't matter. Now we're just talking about what we each are saying mostly divorced from the main issue -- an argument over semantics.
On the main issue, of all the things I want in scenarios, part of that and how I advocate it be brought about will satisfy what you want. That's the important thing.
-
I just have one word "LONGBOW"
-
Or as I called it - TOO LONGBOW !
:rofl
-
Longbow in Air Warrior was a three-part 18-frame event. I thought it was a blast. Air Warrior had fewer players than Aces High has, but its player base was quite dedicated. I don't recall massive drop offs in player attendence, even for such very long scenarios. In Aces High, we would probably not be able to pull such a thing off right now. We have a challenge maintaining attendance for 4-frame events. As we get scenarios ramped up and get more of the AH player base to know about scenarios, we can probably lengthen at least some of them or have some of them be multi-part scenarios. It will happen over time, I think.
-
Originally posted by jordi
Or as I called it - TOO LONGBOW !
:rofl
agreed............so long I could not "buy into" it.
AW actually had more players in (all) the arenas than AH does but much fewer FR players who tended to be (by far) the bulk of the scenario goers.
-
Originally posted by Brooke
The crowd (i.e., the majority of players) does not want to drive GV's. I advocate some scenarios with GV's. I don't know how that would sound like the crowd to you.
Just to be clear and I'm not implying you claimed otherwise. I never at any point requested the exclusion of GV ops in an AH event. My request is that people have the choice to chose never having to be in a GV at the expense of having only one life. That is it, period. .
I'm clear on that.
But also in no way do I support the believe that adding GVs adds realism to a scenario, actually I believe I expressed the exact opposite..[/QUOTE]
Clearly, having GV's is more realistic for a scenario that is emulating a battle that had substantial GV involvement in it. Stalin's Fourth is such a scenario. I don't understand why you would express the opposite.
And opinions being that, that they are, can not be wrong. [/QUOTE]
Some opinions can be neither right nor wrong. "The color green is nice" is an example. Other opinions can be wrong. If one has an opinion that 4 / 2 = 17, one's opinion is wrong.
Your opinion that you don't want to drive ground vehicles isn't wrong. Your opinion that it would be better if people had more choice isn't wrong. Your opinion that having GV's -- regardless of the scenario -- is less realistic is, I think, wrong.
But it doesn't matter. Now we're just talking about what we each are saying mostly divorced from the main issue -- an argument over semantics.
On the main issue, of all the things I want in scenarios, part of that and how I advocate it be brought about will satisfy what you want. That's the important thing. [/B][/QUOTE]
Yes sir you are correct it is semantics, but hardly an opportunity for an argument because you are most blatantly wrong. Let me repeat myself--By definition an opinion can not be wrong. I strongly suggest taking advantage of the opportunities that online dictionaries have to offer. If you need further understanding a quick search found this article which better illustrates the point.
http://www.statenews.com/op_article.phtml?pk=20543
But I do agree, we are better off sticking with the topic at hand
In regards to GV Ops in my opinion :) they make scenarios less realistic due to the believe that their usage is a far, very far cry from any semblence to their use historically. Be it tactics, dispositions, missions roles etc.. I find it all comical. I think a greater sense of realism could be had in scenarios using an implied ground war through CM manipulation and registered effects of aircraft mission results. Would that take some of the "fun" factor out of scenarios for certain people? No doubt, that is why I am in no sense an advocate for their removal from scenarios. As for any realism that just their mere presence adds, you won't convince me to alter my opinion there.
-
TheBug, you are saying that my opinion (which is that opinions can be wrong) is wrong. That's inconsistent. Furthermore, the definition of "opinion" is not what you think it is. The definition of "opinion" is not "a belief that cannot be right or wrong." The definition of "opinion" is a belief not necessarily supported by proof or evidence. An opinion can still end up being right, wrong, or neither (regardless of any article to the contrary by a newspaper columnist). To reiterate a previous clear example, if one has the opinion is that 4 / 2 = 17, one's opinion is just plain provably wrong.
As for the other stuff -- in a scenario modelling a battle with significant GV's in it, you believe it's more realistic to leave GV's out than to have them in. Fine. I will no longer make any attempt to convince you otherwise.
-
Originally posted by Brooke
TheBug, you are saying that my opinion (which is that opinions can be wrong) is wrong. That's inconsistent. Furthermore, the definition of "opinion" is not what you think it is. The definition of "opinion" is not "a belief that cannot be right or wrong." The definition of "opinion" is a belief not necessarily supported by proof or evidence. An opinion can still end up being right, wrong, or neither (regardless of any article to the contrary by a newspaper columnist). To reiterate a previous clear example, if one has the opinion is that 4 / 2 = 17, one's opinion is just plain provably wrong.
As for the other stuff -- in a scenario modelling a battle with significant GV's in it, you believe it's more realistic to leave GV's out than to have them in. Fine. I will no longer make any attempt to convince you otherwise.
I can disagree with your opinion. Opinions can not be wrong, it's not up to you to decide that. It is a fact of the English language. Saying an opinion is wrong is the equivalent of saying 4/2=17. You are misunderstanding the definition of opinion. I don't know how to convince you of that via a BBS. You can't have an "opinion" on mathematical facts, you are misusing the word.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion
"An opinion is a person's ideas and thoughts towards something. It is an assessment, judgement or evaluation of something. An opinion is not a fact, because opinions are not falsifiable.
In economics, philosophy, or other social sciences, analysis based on opinions is referred to as normative analysis (what ought to be), as opposed to positive analysis, which is based on observation (what is)."
P.S. Falsifiable is a fancy way to say can't be wrong.
-
Meanwhile - back to Future Scenario design . . .
:)
-
Originally posted by jordi
Meanwhile - back to Future Scenario design . . .
:)
shush ... we're busy Looting "Roc's stall"
-
Originally posted by Brooke
Longbow in Air Warrior was a three-part 18-frame event.
18-frame event?? :confused: :eek:
So what was the setting/description of that (too)Longbow event? I Couldn't find anything but a gazillion links to the Apache Longbow from google :)
-
Originally posted by Have
18-frame event?? :confused: :eek:
So what was the setting/description of that (too)Longbow event? I Couldn't find anything but a gazillion links to the Apache Longbow from google :)
Looked for some of my longbow stuff, couldn't find too much. I know I have some long e-mails about spits and drop tanks stored around here somewhere... : )
Here's a map I found, it gives a pretty good hint of the theme.
http://www.domogarden.com/Mark/FR4-MAP1.jpg
-
Longbow was a brilliant scenario, not too long.... I loved every minute of it! It was 3 phases of 6 frames each, with 2 of each set of 6 being played on weekday nights, so I could only get to 4 of each phase. When it ended I felt like part of my life was missing. :D
-
This discussed GV-boredom was not something intended in the design of the scenario. One of the major goals was to allow action. That is why teh ride resources were increased from 4 rides to 5 rides... we just did not know how much losses would be suffered.. obviously we expected much more losses. The resources concept was also thought to help balance a possible over or under manned situation between sides.
The original concept was that capturing a V-base would require jabos (IL-2:s) to kill the acks and shore batteries and only then the tanks could roll in and fight the enemy tanks.
The first blow against this was that SBs did nto work, they were removed.
Then at some point the ack lethality was reduced so much that the tanks could pretty much just roll in.
Finally the homebase relocation rule prevented the withdrawing axis to move in proper bases on a pretty wide front so that there would be more fighting instead of capturing empty bases.
Had there been more GV losses, many players would probably have received more air time as well. Then again, maybe those GV losses would have made people feel bad... It is simply very difficult to find a proper balance.
Anyhow, the GVs were a MUST for this kind of scenario. They keep the fight at low and enable base captures. They were also required for the historical aspect. The fights and proper balance of time spent in GVs vs in air just did not get realized... partly because of setup and rule faults and partly because of leadership decisions (each unit always had at least 2 planes per player... but possibly bigger gv losses would have required rotaing units even during one frame).
I myself would have hated to see simply counting points (instead of land grabbing) e.g. for killing jabo targets in 4 predefined (strictly historical) terrain setups and fror killing enemy planes, and then announcing the results in the end like some sports season scores. In such scenarios the individual player has no idea what is going on and some trivial numbers as an end result are hardly satisfactory.
If this scenario is run again some day.. at least the the following issues have to be reconsidered:
- smaller ride resources.
- no free M3s.
- ack lethality (if 1.0 works at MA, why not in scenarios as well).
- more mobility for the defending side.. after all they have to react to attackers moves. Ability to withdraw teh homebases faster (further or even free)). Each defending unit could either have 2 GV homebases or each unit would be completely split into 2 smaller units (= same amount of units at both sides, but axis units have 1/2 strength).
- object downtimes, hardnesses, etc to suit and balance the above changes.
Still... I am glad that at least some people enjoyed the scenario.. or at least some moments of it :)
-
Maybe not the place.....but
A tank will always be more suited to knocking out clustered gguns than an IL2 / Ju87. A tank can take more hits so what ever you set the ggun lethality to this applies.
To push the dependancy away from gv based ordinance you need to reduce it.
Hence severely limit the use of tanks (only 1 or 2per group and only single life)and simulate infantry via M3's and jeeps and simulate fixed defensive positions by use of gguns.
Leave M3's (and now Jeeps) and LVT2's as multiple (free) lives.
Now put in 4 or 5 times the ggun stations at each field at even lower lethality (say.25) but normal arena hardness.
Make gguns recover quite quickly. 10 / 15 minutes
Double or treble the maproom hardness.
Remove town objects.
Give the pure attack aircraft multiple lives.
Give the fighter/bombers one life.
Allow gv's multiple rear bases but no front line base. (quicker spawning)
This way Attack aircraft are essential to secure base preparation as there are insufficient tanks to do this.
a field defended by 15/20/30 gguns each with an lethality of a .303 means the jabos have to work for a period cutting a way through for the troops and so attract a conflict at that point as interceptors arrive...requiring screen fighters etc. we get a furbal low down rather than a ground war and rather than "alt warrior"
Mass troop spawns will be required to "rush" some gguns not yet killed.
-
I haven't seen the Axis forum yet (I thought that the forums for both sides would be opened and viewable for all by now), so my comments may be premature but I have a few suggestions for improvements if this scenario is run again (say a year or two from now):
1) Without making any other changes, I think the scenario would be a greater challenge for the Allied side, and level the playing field, if it was reduced to 3 frames from 4.
2) As an alternative to reducing the number of frames, reduce the playing time per frame to 2 hours. The effect of reducing the frame time would be to slow the Allied advance (balancing the game more). Three hours (3 1/2 if you include the set up time) is also a big time commitment on the lives of many people . We might get more interested players if we had shorter frames.
3) Try to find some way to simplify the multiple life spawn rules. I think some players had a hard time grasping the concept that if your airplane is badly damaged and you make a forced landing at any field but your own home field, you need to return to your home field to draw a replacement aircraft from the reserves (the same goes for vehicles). Even if one understood the rule, MA habits made it easy to accidently spawn at the wrong field.
-
I think the auto fld ack leathality is to light in the MA ... or its just that it cant hit anything anymore... Its way weaker here in AH2 vs that deady stuff in AH1 .
-
Originally posted by Bruno
If Combat Tour is ever released, and HT still plans on a GV AI, then maybe future scenarios can afford to open up GV slots / flight only for the few that don't mind GV'ing and the rest could be filled out with AI. Same with bombers.
Wotan
It makes my skin crawl when I agree with Wotan. But that's my biggest hope. Those who WANT GVs can have them, the computer can fill out the rest. That's my pie in the sky dream for now.
-Sik
-
I think if you had COMBINED GV/ Air battles like we had at 55/73 and 57/58 no one would be bored either on the ground and in the air.
It took the allies almost an HOUR to capture 73 from 55. That was with 2 VVS units on the ground and another in the air.
It took another hour between the capture of 57 and then 58. That was with 2 1/2 VVS units on the ground and another in the air.
If this had been the types of battles everywhere over the 3 hours it would have been great.
But if it takes the ATTACKERS an hour to capture a defended Base and then the defenders could fall back and defend the next base then the victory conditions would need to be radically changed. The attackers might advance 2 to 4 bases deep per frame. Just getting to and captureing 55 would be tuff over 4 frames !
But if the designers look at the logs and see how the battles at 73 and 57/58 they would get a good idea on what worked and the balance needed on both sides.
-
Jordi,
I am glad to hear that such fights took place. The premise for that kind of fight is that the 2 opposing forces actually meet. The rule mistakes were in some cases preventing the action, but we just did not know better at that time. Many things were just guesses and approximate estimations.
I have no idea what you had against you in those fights... equal force or something else. In the future designs more attention (IMHO) has to be put to encourage and cause such clashes :)
-
OK, everyone, I promise this is my last off-topic post on this issue, but I feel compelled to comment this one last time.
Originally posted by TheBug
Opinions can not be wrong, it's not up to you to decide that. It is a fact of the English language.
Yes, opinions can be wrong; and, no, "an opinion can't be wrong" is not a fact of the English language.
Now, I don't expect you to take my word for it. I'm just a person. However, there is an accepted ultimate authority on the meaning of English words. It is not a newspaper column or Wikipedia (which, although I admire it, is quite fallible). It is the the Oxford English Dictionary.
From the Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition:
Opinion, n.
1. As a count noun: a view held about a particular issue; a judgement formed or a conclusion reached; a belief; a religious or political conviction. Formerly (also): a plan, an intention (obs.).
2. a. What is thought of a person by others; the (esp. good) estimation in which one stands; reputation (of being such, or of possessing some quality). Obs.
b. Report, rumour. Obs.
3. a. With specifying adjective, as common, general, public, vulgar, etc. A judgement, belief, or conviction held by the majority of or many people; what is generally thought about something. See also opinion poll, opinion survey, sense 7.
b. More generally: what or how one thinks about something; judgement or belief. Esp. in in my opinion: according to my thinking; as it seems to me. a matter of opinion: a matter about which each may have his or her own opinion; a disputable point.
c. to be of (the) opinion (that): to hold the belief or view; to think (that). Also with further syntactic variation.
d. Public or general opinion.
4. A formal statement by a judge or other competent authority of what he or she judges or advises on a matter; professional advice; as a legal (also medical) opinion, to get an opinion of counsel, etc. In a second (also another) opinion: the opinion of a second (esp. medical) expert or adviser. Also in transferred and extended uses.
5. a. Favourable estimate of oneself; conceit, arrogance; self-confidence. Obs. rare.
b. spec. A good or favourable estimate of someone or something; esteem. Esp. in to have no (great) opinion of: to regard as inferior or unworthy.
c. What one thinks of a person or thing; an estimate of character, quality, or value.
6. Thought of what is likely to be the case, knowledge; expectation based on knowledge or belief. Obs.
It does not say that opinions can't be wrong. It does not use that as a defining element of all things called "opinion."
Like any other belief or judgment, it depends on the content. An opinion can be disputable or unprovable one way or the other and thus neither right nor wrong (such as the opinion that the color green is nice), can be wrong (such as the opinion that 4 / 2 = 17), can be right, or can be indeterminate at one time but proven right or wrong at a later time when more information is known (such as the opinion that the sun revolves around the earth).
OK, that's it from me on the topic. I don't mean to point all of this out in any mean-spirited way. I wanted just to point out that not all opinions are, by definition, outside the bounds of being judged right or wrong.
-
If it's shown to be wrong it's not an opinion. You're struggling with this aren't you? It is impossible to prove an opinion wrong. If somebody's statement is proven to be wrong then it can't really be an opinion can it? It is a case of somebody making a mistake, being ignorant, misspeaking.
Jeez you're really not that thick are you?
Only the claim that something is an opinion can be proven wrong.
In my opinion blue is the best color <-- can't be proven wrong very clearly an opinion
In my opinion 4/2=17 <-- Very easily proven wrong, therefore not an opinion, but an uneducated statement or a lie.
Calling it an opinion doesn't make it an opinion, being impossible to prove false is a factor in determining whether or not something is an opinion or not.
-
The fight from 57 to 58 was very fun for me. We faced Panzers and a lot of FW 190's and Bf 109's. Each time the bridge was up, a wave of attackers would go across, then the bridge would be destroyed, and the wave of attackers that got across would get eventually destroyed. Each time, each wave took out more and more at 58 until we finally captured it.
There are maybe a couple of things I'd adjust with the rules of Stalin's Fourth: I'd make the spawn rules not rely on player enforcement, perhaps by enabling vehicles at only certain bases as the event rolled forward; and I'd adjust ground-vehicle deployment so that only half the squads have ground vehicles available in a frame, then the other half have ground vehicles available in the next frame, and so on.
I'd also be interested in trying it as a two-stage event, where people battle it out, then they switch sides and do it again. For this, it would probably need to be modified to be 3 frames per stage.
-
A two stage event might be interesting, but how would we adjust the 2:1 ratio of Axis to Allied players?
-
Good point.
We would have to have it so that some portion of the player base does not switch. That's how it is going to be done in the Pearl Harbor scenario. There would have to be 5 VVS squadrons that stay VVS the whole time.
-
Can we beg on our knees that HT makes GV drones.....
GV drones would be to scenarios what Buff drones will be to CT...
Tex
-
Originally posted by TexMurphy
Can we beg on our knees that HT makes GV drones.....
GV drones would be to scenarios what Buff drones will be to CT...
Tex
Why, for heavens sakes?
It seems to me the whole "draw" of this "game" is that you are fighting
against someone with a bit more intelligence than a drone. At least
that's the case the majority of the time :)
The only thing that makes buff drones "acceptable" to ne is the fact that
there is a real person ( intellect TBD ) driving the formation.
If yours is a comment made as a result of finding the need to drive
GV's in Stalins IV as "boring", then just don't sign up for that flavor
of scenario.
=GB=
-
Originally posted by Gypsy Baron
If yours is a comment made as a result of finding the need to drive
GV's in Stalins IV as "boring", then just don't sign up for that flavor
of scenario.=GB=
Cmon GB...u know as well as any, we need all of our "core scenario" pilots to attend all the various scenarios. Attendance is key to any of them. Making an "attendance friendly" scenario is the idea they are trying to get across.
IMHO..for most AHers, GVs are a side show, not worth building a whole scenario around.