Aces High Bulletin Board
Special Events Forums => Scenario General => Topic started by: Fencer51 on October 31, 2009, 08:01:48 PM
-
There have been a few Scenarios in the past which had ground vehicles as part of the event. Stalin's Fourth being the one I am familiar with.
Dawn of Battle back last Spring also had them. We attempted to learn from that experience and modified the rules of Red Storm Krupp Steel to enhance the enjoyment of the ground combat element.
Without going into what happened today, it is obvious that the interface between air and ground continues to be a problem in scenarios.
The CM scenario team is open for suggestions on how best to integrate vehicles into scenarios.
Is it possible to do so with aircraft involved in the ground war in any form? Does it need to be done so that capturing of bases is not part of the objectives. Maybe a terrain object of some sort like a ridge or section of trees (palm not withstanding) are the objective.
I and the rest of the scenario CM team are open for your input. There are several other scenarios in stages of design which we would like to have ground vehicles to be a part, in some a major part, of the event. It is in everyone's best interest to maintain and increase the "vehicle player base" in these special events.
-
I had a few thoughts about this today. I think most agree that we want to see gv action integrated with air combat action. It wouldn't be fun for the two kinds of combat to be happening in hermetically sealed chambers where one cannot affect the other, and it also wouldn't represent the tactical realities of WW2 combat. That said, it can be frustrating to get bombed again and again while in a gv. The rule that deaths due to aircraft does not count toward the 4 allowed was a nice gesture, but might not be enough because gv play must be meaningful: your success or failure must be somewhat equivalent to effort and skill. Attack aircraft void that equation.
Maybe someone has already suggested it, but in a scenario similar to this:
1) Provide each side with a maximum quota of ordinance, and let the CO's decide how to use it. For example, side X gets 100,000kg of ordinance for a frame, to be split among units however they see fit.
2) Remove any restrictions on who can attack what. The current rule is going to be a nightmare to regulate.
With a finite amount of ordnance, each side would have to balance how much they use to destroy stationary targets and how much they use to destroy gv's. Accomplishing the first goal would place a leash on aircraft interference with gv battles, while still allowing interaction between them. CM's could manipulate how ordnance is used through the assignment of point values to stationary target destruction vs gv's.
-
while I would agree that limiting ords might possibly be a good suggestion and I do like the idea.....
I dont think it would be possible
Im not sure if you could tell from the logs specifically several things:
how much ord a plane lifted with
how much ord a plane dropped
how much ord a plane landed with
etc.......
further theres no way to limit or control that..... so even a sides limit had been reached....... theres no way to stop them from lifting more....... and youd have know way of knowing that they did
but very good thought none the less
-
while I would agree that limiting ords might possibly be a good suggestion and I do like the idea.....
I dont think it would be possible
Im not sure if you could tell from the logs specifically several things:
how much ord a plane lifted with
how much ord a plane dropped
how much ord a plane landed with
etc.......
further theres no way to limit or control that..... so even a sides limit had been reached....... theres no way to stop them from lifting more....... and youd have know way of knowing that they did
but very good thought none the less
Actually, you can tell from the logs how much ord a plane upped with. How much the plane dropped wouldn't matter, but how much it returned with would. That is a hole, good point.
-
the other point of course would be if you had aircraft that were dual purpose such as say a 190 or something that was halfway on their way to a strat when they encountered enemy fighters............ the immediate reaction if engaged would be to drop all ord in order to defend your life
this would seriously negate alot of operations
-
the other point of course would be if you had aircraft that were dual purpose such as say a 190 or something that was halfway on their way to a strat when they encountered enemy fighters............ the immediate reaction if engaged would be to drop all ord in order to defend your life
this would seriously negate alot of operations
That's war buddy. ;)
-
That's war buddy. ;)
Im sorry......... do wars have a written set of rules that have to be adhered to? .... its a scenario buddy
-
Im sorry......... do wars have a written set of rules that have to be adhered to? .... its a scenario buddy
Oh come on, you need to read me with a lighter heart than that. :lol I'm very surprised to see you take my post that way.
The point is to find a solution for GV's being incorporated into the action, and the only way to make it fun is for some kind of restriction to be placed on attack/bomber aircraft.
So, back to your point about having to jettison ords because of enemy fighters. Do you really see that as being a problem that players would be unable to adapt to? Remember, it wouldn't necessarily mean they couldn't go back with more ord to destroy their target later, but it might mean less gv killing.
-
but actually that is the point.......... they may not be able to go to their targets later with more ord............ they reached the ord limit...........
imagine this for example........... 1 hour left in scenario.............. thanks for your help bombers...... you can log off now......... we are out of bombs.............
also what about rearms...... if an aircraft took off with ordinance it will get all that ordinance back when it rearms......... even if ord is disabled for the field......... so now you have to turn off all rearm ability as well
not trashing the idea......... like I said it makes a good argument........ and would be an effective way to limit bombing GVs........ unfortunately IMO (one of the GVs who doesnt like getting bombed) there are too many uncontrollable variables and side effects
-
Maybe a better way to approach this is asking "why did Stalin's Fourth work while these last few haven't" instead.
Wish I had a copy of the S4 rules so that I could refresh myself.
-
Maybe a better way to approach this is asking "why did Stalin's Fourth work while these last few haven't" instead.
Wish I had a copy of the S4 rules so that I could refresh myself.
http://www.electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/stalins_fourth/rules/main.htm
-
Stalin's Fourth put a lot of people (lots of pilots) in GV's. Some pilots don't like that. Some are OK with it (I had a blast, for example, and love that scenario -- and we will run Stalin's Fourth again if the terrain is available), but a player who strongly prefers planes is going to consider duty in GV's to be secondary and not be into it with as much seriousness and fervor as a true GV enthusiast would be.
What we tried to do with Tunisia is make a portion of the scenario tailored and dedicated to the GV'er -- to folks for whom tanks are a primary or major interest.
So, we wanted some air/ground interaction (as that did happen in real life), but we did already know that lots of bombing of GV's would cause GV'ers not to want to participate. So, we tried some middle ground: restricting Ju 88's to level bombing and having deaths to air attack not count for the ground folks.
What we found is that a portion of GV'ers still felt that there was too much bombing going on.
As a result, for Red Storm, we cut it down still further, restricting ground attack only to one squadron of Il-2's and one squadron of FW 190F-8's. I will go into more detail about that tomorrow and move on to what my suggestions are and why I have those suggestions.
-
Stalin's Fourth put a lot of people (lots of pilots) in GV's. Some pilots don't like that. Some are OK with it (I had a blast, for example, and love that scenario -- and we will run Stalin's Fourth again if the terrain is available), but a player who strongly prefers planes is going to consider duty in GV's to be secondary and not be into it with as much seriousness and fervor as a true GV enthusiast would be.
With the way Stalin's Fourth was set up, that didn't seem to be too big of an issue. Since each and every squadron had a ground element and an air unit, people that were too off-put by GV work could be reassigned (even as far as going to another channel, if not just in support of the rest of the squadron) for some air work. I think a lot of the time many "pilots" went into the ground war feeling a bit uneasy and anticipating the worst, but really got into it when surrounded by those of us that take it seriously, could protect them, and let them experience the battle without just getting popped by some other tanker every time they approached the base (as they expected from MA).
-
Is there any way to set it up so that GV icons aren't visible from the air, but are from the ground?
-
You cannot turn on G2G icons, and A2A and A2G icons are limited to being either 6K or 3K. As of the last time I looked, and I haven't seen it changed.
-
With the way Stalin's Fourth was set up, that didn't seem to be too big of an issue.
No, not a huge issue. As I said, there were folks who were fine with it (like me -- I loved it), but there were also folks who didn't like being in GV's much. And a lot of folks who were OK with still preferred planes. They wanted to serve some in tanks and get rotated to airplanes, which is where their passion lies.
Again, what we were trying to do with Tunisia and Red Storm is to create a portion of the event specifically for GV enthusiasts, for people who would be in tanks, desire to stay in tanks, and have a passion for tanks, to have it specifically for the folks who would get into it deeply. That was the attempt.
Tonight, I will post my thoughts on how best to do things based on my observations so far.
-
Again, what we were trying to do with Tunisia and Red Storm is to create a portion of the event specifically for GV enthusiasts, for people who would be in tanks, desire to stay in tanks, and have a passion for tanks, to have it specifically for the folks who would get into it deeply. That was the attempt.
Why? Having the choice and option to be either flier or driver appears a lot less "broken" than the current system.
-
Why?
I just am telling you what I saw (from my perspective, not everyone's perspective) and what intentions were for Tunisia and Red Storm. So the answer to "why" is "because that's how I perceived it" and "because of the reasons I already explained".
In scenarios, we try different ways of doing things from time to time. But in AH, for every 100 players, there are 100 different opinions on what is best. Some things you will like better than others. You might not like having folks dedicated to a role instead of switching around throughout the scenario. But that is a perference on your part. Neither way is right or wrong, and different folks have different preferences, which is why we try different approaches from time to time.
-
I'm getting a unique GVing perspective with my position in this scenario. I'll do a write up on this subject, but I would like to wait until the scenario is over to see how the rest plays out first. I can say right now though that having a GV portion should be a part of every scenario.
-
I'm getting a unique GVing perspective with my position in this scenario. I'll do a write up on this subject, but I would like to wait until the scenario is over to see how the rest plays out first. I can say right now though that having a GV portion should be a part of every scenario.
BoB? Big week? :confused:
-
BoB? Big week? :confused:
I can do it, lemme check my references!
-
BoB?
DDay was part of BoB, right? :noid
-
My gawd, with a little common sense I guess I need to add. :rolleyes:
-
My gawd, with a little common sense I guess I need to add. :rolleyes:
Naturally! :D
-
(http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/145/funnyghostface.gif) (http://img156.imageshack.us/i/funnyghostface.gif/)
-
My opinion at this time is that in scenarios such as this, with pilots getting two lives, and deaths in GVs from the air not counting against the GVer's life count, that it should be open season on GVs by any plane in the air. It's the most realistic (this is a scenario), and adds an entirely new dimension to the action. More targets=more to do, and the GVers have to change the strategy to include air defense. My tankers like to use Wirbels too. :) I think there should be more GV slots also. The tank battles so far have been epic & very fun, but the limited GV numbers hamper the battles that could be attained. Yes, this is primarily a flying game, but if a scenario is going to have a GV side, it deserves to go all out just like the flying side of the battle. I would say that next scenario that has GVs, double the GV slots and see how much they fill, as an experiment. As long as the air slots fill up as normal, what would having a kick-ass big battle on the ground also hurt? More fun for everyone IMO. Larger GV battles that supply plenty of targets for the air boys.
Out. :salute
-
My opinion at this time is that in scenarios such as this, with pilots getting two lives, and deaths in GVs from the air not counting against the GVer's life count, that it should be open season on GVs by any plane in the air. It's the most realistic (this is a scenario), and adds an entirely new dimension to the action. More targets=more to do, and the GVers have to change the strategy to include air defense. My tankers like to use Wirbels too. :) I think there should be more GV slots also. The tank battles so far have been epic & very fun, but the limited GV numbers hamper the battles that could be attained. Yes, this is primarily a flying game, but if a scenario is going to have a GV side, it deserves to go all out just like the flying side of the battle. I would say that next scenario that has GVs, double the GV slots and see how much they fill, as an experiment. As long as the air slots fill up as normal, what would having a kick-ass big battle on the ground also hurt? More fun for everyone IMO. Larger GV battles that supply plenty of targets for the air boys.
Out. :salute
+1 to all of this.
This is my first scenario as a GV'er, and I'm blown away. Never cared much for the ground war in the MA's, but this is something entirely different- and teamwork is what makes it so. Not just just teamwork amongst us on the ground, but teamwork with friendly air assets also.
Air/ground combined action is the most immersive thing I have experienced in scenarios thus far. The only "limiting" moments have come when the restrictions come into play. Not mentioning any specifics, but with too many rules about who can engage what and when, it starts to become more tedious than immersive.
As long as GV's are allowed to allocate some of their units to AA defense units, and as long as deaths due to air attack do not count as "lives", I see no reason why the current model of air to ground integration cannot continue to work. In fact, I see no reason why current restrictions cannot be removed for future events.
At any rate, I think the worst things for future scenarios would be either complete lack of ground war in scenarios where it is feasible, or an isolated ground war with no air involvement.
-
trotter since this is your first you havent seen some of the past issues.......
as an example take Tunisia......... I was in a panzer for the scenario........ I never lost a life to another tank........ and in fact in 1 frame I never even saw another tank.....and its not because Im just that good... reason....
drive for 20 minutes to get in position and wait for the GV battle to begin........ in flys a squadron of attack planes and eggs us all............ sit in tower for 5 minutes............
drive for 20 minutes to get in position and wait for the GV battle to begin again........ in flys a squadron of attack planes and eggs us all......... sit in tower for 5 minutes............
you see where this is going?
thats why theres specific rules and fine lines....... because the number of GVs are limited to begin with........ and its so easy to drop a bomb on a GV.... it can really make for a boring and unenjoyable event if you never get to actually fight anyone in a GV....... which is the main intent to create a ground battle
I am glad however that you enjoyed your first time ........ and you have 3 more frames to enjoy in the current scenario......... they can be quite a bit of fun if it actually goes off like it should
-
My opinion at this time is that in scenarios such as this, with pilots getting two lives, and deaths in GVs from the air not counting against the GVer's life count, that it should be open season on GVs by any plane in the air. It's the most realistic (this is a scenario), and adds an entirely new dimension to the action. More targets=more to do, and the GVers have to change the strategy to include air defense. My tankers like to use Wirbels too. :)
We can have scenarios where any attack is OK and where we rotate people though GV's (like Stalin's Fourth, with no GV-specific slots in registration) -- that works OK. But we can't fill GV slots with GV folks when there is much air attack allowed.
I think there should be more GV slots also. The tank battles so far have been epic & very fun, but the limited GV numbers hamper the battles that could be attained. Yes, this is primarily a flying game, but if a scenario is going to have a GV side, it deserves to go all out just like the flying side of the battle. I would say that next scenario that has GVs, double the GV slots and see how much they fill, as an experiment. As long as the air slots fill up as normal, what would having a kick-ass big battle on the ground also hurt? More fun for everyone IMO. Larger GV battles that supply plenty of targets for the air boys.
We'd love more GV'ers to play, but we run into not being able to fill GV-specific registration slots at about 20-30 positions per side.
If we want more than that, we need to go to a registration style where there are no specific slots -- just N per side. And out of that N, M of them are put into GV's. But it can't be that those M folks are put in GV's and stay there whereas the rest fly the whole scenario, because chances are that a bunch of folks who prefer planes are in that mix and don't want to play if they get "stuck" in GV's the whole time. That's how a lot of folks see it, and that's why we wanted to try GV-specific slots for people who *prefer* tanks and consider them primary rides.
So, we either go with everyone in one pile, and we rotate them through tank duty (which a lot of them are not all that serious about or skilled in), and any attack goes. Or we make GV-specific spots for the tank enthusiasts -- try to do it for them -- but have fewer GV's and restrict air attack on the tanks.
The only issue with the latter is that it has been an enormously unpleasant chore to work out and implement air-attack limitations. Me, I think I my preference is becoming either (1) no GV-specific slots, everyone in one pile, rotate, and no attack limitations or (2) GV-specific slots and no air attack at all (which is then not an enormous headache).
Anyway, a lot of folks very much liked Stalin's Fourth (such as me), and we will run it again if the terrain is redone to work with the current Aces High (a huge chore for a terrain person, unfortunately). Some folks did very much like the ground action in Tunisia, but not everyone. Some of the ground-battle AAR's there sounded like a lot of fun. We'll see what folks think of Red Storm after frame 4.
-
Stalin's Fourth put a lot of people (lots of pilots) in GV's. Some pilots don't like that. Some are OK with it (I had a blast, for example, and love that scenario -- and we will run Stalin's Fourth again if the terrain is available), but a player who strongly prefers planes is going to consider duty in GV's to be secondary and not be into it with as much seriousness and fervor as a true GV enthusiast would be.
In Stalin's Fourth I spent about half of the scenario in GVs guarding some "strategic" bridges. What that meant in practice was that we sat there in the bushes, shot the bridges down, waited until they reupped and shot them down again. About quarter of the scenario was spent in static AA-guns in the bases. Then we got a flight or two in a plane.
Result? Worst scenario experience ever.
-
In Stalin's Fourth I spent about half of the scenario in GVs guarding some "strategic" bridges. What that meant in practice was that we sat there in the bushes, shot the bridges down, waited until they reupped and shot them down again. About quarter of the scenario was spent in static AA-guns in the bases. Then we got a flight or two in a plane.
Result? Worst scenario experience ever.
The bridges were a bit of a design flaw as I don't think that had been tried before, and a lesson has been learned there. "Tisk tisk" to whoever gave you that order and didn't "rotate the watch," too.
-
i know i am new, but it seems to me the problem was a result of objective overlapping.
if i may i would suggest letting the air to air assets work one set of objectives and let the air to ground work against another.
you could move the tanks into say an open field campaign outside any dar coverage the strategic bombers and air superiority fighters would work the towns and supply lines and the tactical bombers and tank destroyers would be scouting the open spaces for the enemy armor bridges roads etc.
if the armor was moving on a town then the number of times and time of frame could be restricted for strategic operations on that target.this could all be enforced by a negative feedback scoring.
i.e. a strategic bomb damaging a enemy tank would result in the bombers team loosing points. so even if the tank gets it in a foul he will have done some good for his team. conversely the bomber that is not assigned tank busting would need to look at every tank as a FF situation.
this would add to the pressure to hit our strategic targets quickly. i.e.
"get the town before the enemy tanks get there !!!"
btw i know i am not exactly using the terms strategic and tactical correctly but for my purposes in this post tactical can be thought of as anti-armor and strategic can be thought of as anti fixed non transportation assets.
anyway just thinking about the problem.
-
didn't mean to shut everybody up ...
:(
+S+
t
-
I had an Idea that we could do a recreation of the landing at Normandy.
4 Frames.
Frames 1 and 2 maybe, the allied manning CV guns, manning LVT's with cannons, troops and supplies. The Axis having Shore Batteries, M3's, M-16s to defend.
This means nearly everyone in GVs and Manned guns and maybe a few C-47's with supplies and troops to go inland.
A terrain must be set to have many many shore guns set up and the beach head would be made up of many map rooms requiring 50 or so troops. Gold, Juno, etc.
Frame 3 and 4 could also switch sides and do it again or some sort of Air Only campaign or a mixture.
Stalin's 4th did a great job of balancing this, as I recall.
I posted this over a year ago, I think.
-
Maybe your asking the wrong question...
Maybe the question should start with the premise that the challenge is to put more planes in a GV scenario...
I don't think you can find a happy middle ground...at least not yet.
Decide whether its GV centric or Aircraft centric and then work forward from there.
GV centric Scenarios should use limited amounts of aircraft, based far from the front line, in early war planes...
Perhaps base capture in such a scenario should use only C47 for troops, and the early war plane set has a goal not to kill GV, but clear the skies and get the Goon in...
Scenarios are understandably aircraft driven seeing as this is an aircraft sim and the community is 85%+ all about airplanes...
I think the guys on the ground need a bone or two...I think they need their 'days' in the sun...
Brooke Said: "We'd love more GV'ers to play, but we run into not being able to fill GV-specific registration slots at about 20-30 positions per side."
I think you all might be surprised with the turn out of an ALL GV scenario...The Sands of Tunisia...The Battle of the Bulge...there are enough talented and committed GV guys to design this and offer it up for review...
Start the design from the ground up...excuse the obvious pun...then find a way to bring the planes into the design to enhance a ground based design...
Not the other way around...
Shift the perspective if you want a different outcome...
Oneway
-
but actually that is the point.......... they may not be able to go to their targets later with more ord............ they reached the ord limit...........
imagine this for example........... 1 hour left in scenario.............. thanks for your help bombers...... you can log off now......... we are out of bombs.............
also what about rearms...... if an aircraft took off with ordinance it will get all that ordinance back when it rearms......... even if ord is disabled for the field......... so now you have to turn off all rearm ability as well
not trashing the idea......... like I said it makes a good argument........ and would be an effective way to limit bombing GVs........ unfortunately IMO (one of the GVs who doesnt like getting bombed) there are too many uncontrollable variables and side effects
That actually sounds good to me. Force commanders to plan ahead. Those 190s don't NEED to be carrying ords. Throw ordenance-laden fighter-bombers into a fighter trap, you deserve to get what comes to you!
-
Another part of the GV aspect dawned on me this morning. 4 Lives per gv is ok, but IMO it should be a "floating" number. Example, in the last scenario, last frame the allied side had a total of of 14 tankers, the Axis had 8. This equals 56 lives for the Allied and 32 lives for the Axis. To me that number seems to be a bit overwhelming. Yes I know it sounds like "Scenerio ENY" but thats a huge advantage in the long run of the frame. Just my thoughts though.
-
Brooke contacted me in Frame 2 when Axis GVs were outnumbered asking me if it was ok if he gave them additional lives to even it out. I said yes of course. It ended up evening out so there was no need. As for frame 4, at the frame start, there were equal players on each side, so if the Axis GVs were outnumbered that badly, ya might want to hunt your walk-on handler down and flog him.(http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/5018/fighting0056.gif) (http://img412.imageshack.us/i/fighting0056.gif/)
-
Another part of the GV aspect dawned on me this morning. 4 Lives per gv is ok, but IMO it should be a "floating" number. Example, in the last scenario, last frame the allied side had a total of of 14 tankers, the Axis had 8. This equals 56 lives for the Allied and 32 lives for the Axis. To me that number seems to be a bit overwhelming. Yes I know it sounds like "Scenerio ENY" but thats a huge advantage in the long run of the frame. Just my thoughts though.
This was enabled in this scenario. Both COs had agreed to it and all that needed to be done was a request for it to implemented be given to Brooke by the respective CO.
-
Ah, was not aware that was the case. Thought that was only frame 2. Perhaps in the next scenerio with GVs that should be stated in the rules. I'm not complaining, its just a suggestion for future frames.
-
Before i go into a big in depth message about what i would say, I would love to hear more of the axis side of this last scenario. they seem to have had a rough time and not enjoyed it even half as much as the allies....
Key notes i see right now are that:
#1. The 5min rule works
#2. Total lives may be more important than everyone gets 3 lives kind of thing... (i know i only used 1/2 of my lives vs some people getting killed alot quick and leaving) not wanting to gun for people.
#3. Recruiting for GV's needs to be better (i know alot of MA GVers knew nothing about the scenario)
#4. Online had great points about making the scenario from the ground up, As of right now i cant think of any scenario (even BoB and Big week) in witch Antiaircraft guns or tanks were not used during the operations. (BoB would have alot of gunners protecting things or ship gunners) (big week would need the same)
more later, but IMHO we all need to stay calm (some guys have gotten mad Ive read and want nothing to do with GV's in scenarios)
just like our plans on the allies side this past month, we all put alot of thinking and planing into it and had a blast. we have alot of smart talented people who I'm sure can make the ground war just as fun as the air war in the scenarios.
-
I suppose I did not read through it all completely, but did anyone suggest providing air cover for the GVs? Protecting one's friendly GVs from enemy bombers? Is that not quite an obvious solution if GVs feel like they are getting hammered too much?
-
Before i go into a big in depth message about what i would say, I would love to hear more of the axis side of this last scenario. they seem to have had a rough time and not enjoyed it even half as much as the allies....
Pulled this from another thread, should probably be here instead.
I myself had a good time, and there was public recruiting and private recruiting as well. Some showed up others didn't. After the first frame only 5 of the 20 registered players returned. Which to me was a huge disappointment to have 15 people not show or quit all togther. Not to mention two of them were GLs and one the original ground CO. Then I took over command the night before second frame, and I found difficult to fill 15 tanks. And my tankers that did show did an excellent job.
Sloehand, Kermit, Retail, Crypitic, and myself put a great deal of effort into this, between recruiting, collecting data, making maps, and conferences. Thats all I have to say, you guys did a good job, and my guys did an outstanding job.
-
I went through the same thing Nate. In I believe it was Frame 2, I only had one guy show up for one of my Regiments, and another only had two guys show up. That was a bad frame for us. After that (which you will see when our boards are unlocked), is that we went on a massive recruiting spree. People started bringing a buddy to walk-on & GV. Luckily for me, they were some pretty dang good walk-ons too. ;) I think I had guys that signed up for a regiment and didn't show up for any frames. I look forward to looking at each other's threads when the time comes bro. I've never been in this position in a scenario before & had no clue if I was doing it right. :lol I'm glad I got to square off against one of my good buddies & semi-neighbor. :salute
P.S. bro:
:neener:
(You'll understand. :D)
-
I went through the same thing Nate. In I believe it was Frame 2, I only had one guy show up for one of my Regiments, and another only had two guys show up. That was a bad frame for us.
The problem on our side existed because we all came from the same group of people. "HEELER's Group" as we began to be called were all picked up by close association with him and the other members of the group. Being close-knit, when the top of the chain (HEELER, batched, and myself) became severely disillusioned, the group left in one big heap, even taking a couple of the aircraft guys along who had also been recruited by HEELER. I believe the entire anti-tank 190F8 squadron almost dropped with us.
I'm sure many of them (especially the firebrands like batched) won't be returning to scenarios, period. I generally enjoy them enough that I will...though I'm not sure if I'll trust driving a tank any more. Unfortunate.
-
Integration of ground war in an AH scenario does present some challenges. But first it is important to establish why ground war is implemented into an air combat scenario in the first place.
In EF/GPW scenarios going right back to Niemen the objective (in this case) was to bring combat down to an altitude that was representative of the conflict. Air borne attrition of battlefield targets was an essential component of the GPW conflict.
In such battles (skirmishes within battles) the side possessing air superiority over the battle field decided the outcome. Early on the LW made the air safe for its Ju87's latterly the VVS made the air safe for the IL2's whilst the LW squandered its mediium bombers & HS129's etc over the battle fields of Kursk to Bagration.
The problem is one of numbers and scale. We may have a couple of hundred players representing a conflict of several hundred aircraft. We have even fewer players representing a conflict of thousands of military vehicles and almost millions of infantry.
In this context it is preferable to balance the land war to almost stale mate allwing the A2G element to tip the balance. Or if there is a known (established) GV superiority written into the game play (for one side) then the balance is not one of stalemate but one of "controlled retreat/defence" (as per the conflict).
But with so few GV's the focus becomes too sharp (even for GV pilots with limitless lives) and essentially the GV war could be taken out if lives and access to the battlefield is inhibited.
Hence GV's require maximum access (from any field) and few limitations on lives available (although some limitation on vehicle types is advisable).
In Krupp/Sturm an additional limitation was placed upon the role of the attack aircraft. IMO this contributed well as a game play balancer. It is still problematic however. Aircraft were historically more mobile than GV's yet (through our requirement to permit multiple lives flexible access(spawnage)) in our scenarios the reverse becomes true. GV's are able to leap about the map in a manner that aircraft cannot follow.
We over come this by providing even greater focus by limiting the ground capture targets. Ie there is little search and destroy...both sides know exactly (or nearly) where the conflict will occurr.
The solution looking forward IMO is an AI driven ground war. Finely balanced through out its various areas of conflict. In essence AI GV missions would be set by the CM's according to the designers Mission files. These would have been pretested to eatblish a balance.
Players now interact within and above this AI battle field. Tipping the balance via A2G and local G2G intervention. Enabling break throughs in the local ground battles and then supporting the drive on to ward the objectives.
Knowing that by his/her intervention or skill that a "break thru occurs provides game feed back to the player.
Boring GV type jobs can be taken up by AI. GV players can (via the scenario CoC) tip the balance by launching additional GV's to over come the AI opposition locally. There may even be a player GV responce on the other side to redress balance.
Or even an A2G responce.Provided that air superiority is maintained thru air borne conflict.
In this way the air war does not have to be "bent" to meet a balance with the usually limited ground war. The airwar is a full fledged conflict attempting to maintain air superiority over player chosen (vis CoC) battle fields with direct feed back of success/failure re the out come.
To do this AH would need to make enhanced AI driven Mission-ware available to scenario designers..............hopefu lly one day this will be the case...........
-
The only problem inherent in all of that is how ground players think. We get bombed enough as it is in the MA and would really like it not to happen in scenarios. In order for that to be entirely true, the aircraft have to be segregated from the GVs, and that's just not worthwhile/possible/ect. So, an even medium has to be found. Such was accomplished in this scenario, EXCEPT the enforcement of it. The mass exodus of tankers came about mostly due to the response from the CMs; "Don't post anything negative on the boards, send it to your CO and...someone...will take care of it." "They're only marking tanks with bombs, just ignore the psychological factor of it. Nevermind the A20 that apparently got an assist on one of them." Add to that that GVs on the defensive were so easily snuffed by absolutely murdering our hangars before friendly aircraft could get anywhere close (making it four lives against one, especially with the number of bomber/attacker aircraft the Allies had...our only bombers HAD to go after strat targets, making it much harder for us to plow down VHs) and our tankers just couldn't bear three more frames.
-
Nice analytical thoughts, Tilt :aok
Just thinking, likely an AI driven ground war is quite a long step to the future, but would it help at all if we had GV drones? ...like bombers do.
-
This was enabled in this scenario. Both COs had agreed to it and all that needed to be done was a request for it to implemented be given to Brooke by the respective CO.
Again another thing our CO didn't tell us lack of communication was the big part of the walk off. Rules agreed on without any questions to other command and then not passed down after agreed on.
-
Again another thing our CO didn't tell us lack of communication was the big part of the walk off. Rules agreed on without any questions to other command and then not passed down after agreed on.
Ah, yeah, forgot that part.
Randomly finding out he'd agreed to let us rearm anywhere we wanted somewhere around midframe was...helpful. Nobody on either side had been told about the invulnerable radar towers either, by the looks of it.
-
Allied pilots, as a whole, knew that the radars were indestructible from the very onset....
-
Allied pilots, as a whole, knew that the radars were indestructible from the very onset....
Suppose that's why two or three A20s bombed it. :noid
-
Allied pilots, as a whole (aka for the most part), knew that the radars were indestructible from the very onset....
Guess that means something else in your language...
Strip
-
Guess so.
whole
/hoʊl/ –adjective
1. comprising the full quantity, amount, extent, number, etc., without diminution or exception; entire, full, or total: He ate the whole pie. They ran the whole distance.
2. containing all the elements properly belonging; complete: We have a whole set of antique china.
3. undivided; in one piece: to swallow a thing whole.
4. Mathematics. integral, or not fractional.
5. not broken, damaged, or impaired; intact: Thankfully, the vase arrived whole.
-
Irregardless of your Websters dictionary quote....
One thing I have began to notice is the only people with low regard for how ground vehicles were handled and overall game play are the Axis players.
Strip
-
Yup. We didn't have any medium bombers available.
-
I fail to see how that would sway the outcome measurably....
The Axis was in a defensive posture, the rules worked in your favor with respect to GV's. Our IL-2 regiment's scored a total of around 15 kill's combined over 4 frames. Your Fw-190F8's carried a similar amount (more really) of ordnance, or the option to anyway. On top of that they are at least capable of some offensive combat and do not need escort. They racked up a staggering 30+ kills in the first frame alone. You faulting that the lack of a medium bomber is hardly relevant to the discussion of how to include ground vehicles or the axis players disappointment in this scenario.
Strip
-
Fencer, might as well lock this one too. I see it going away from a productive conversation. :(
-
No I think there is something to learn here, Allied drivers had a lot of fun and Axis drivers didn't. A detailed look into each side should show you why the difference in opinion. Blaming the lack of a medium bomber is simply not a viable argument when you look at the numbers. In my opinion the GV's should be handled again in the exact same manner next time. Its impossible to tell all of the variables and analyze how they influenced the event the first time. It seems the Axis disappointment centers around a very minor rule infraction and walk out of some players. Now that the same regiment was short players and leadership through out the frame. Coincidentally, or perhaps not, many of the ground vehicle drivers from that regiment have low opinions of the event.
I have my suspicions about the disappointment but some feelings may get hurt and I am trying to avoid that....
Strip
-
Strip makes a good point here. The Allied gv players, by and large, had a great time and enjoyed the scenario immensely, even though we were held essentially to a standstill during the first two frames, and only really kicked butt during the last two. The Axis players seem to be really unhappy.
I would suggest that the issues that made the Axis players so unhappy have a lot to do with the Axis leadership, and not the scenario itself.
As far as ground support from the air, I know the 190-F8 pilots must have worked hard practicing that rocketing technique. During frame 1 I was tracked by a 190 using rockets, in a very spot spot, where multiple Tigers and Panzers had shots at me from 2000-3000 yards away, and I was eventually killed. In frame 4 I went out with two or three others at V23 to patrol the perimeter and see if anything was going on when some F8s attacked us, and I and another one or two of us were outright killed by their rockets.
The problem was, in this incident in frame 4, it wasn't coordinated with a simultaneous ground assault, so the F8 kills were essentially meaningless to the overall frame. That's a leadership and coordination problem, not a "GVs suck in scenarios" problem.
The final comment I have is that the Allied command seemed to value our GV effort more, and made sure we got a good share of the walk-ons and whatnot to boost our numbers. The Axis command doesn't seem to have done that, because despite relatively similar numbers on both sides starting out the frame, in the last two frames at least the Axis tank forces were probably 4 or 5 people more shorthanded than the Allies were. Again, that would be something to take up with the Axis high command, and not a problem with GVs in scenarios per se.
I think some good AARs should be held by each side to determine what worked, what didn't, and what issues came up. I think there are valuable lessons to be learned from not only how this went, but, perhaps more importantly, why the Allied tankers seem to have really loved this scenario, and the Axis ones think it sucked, and announce that they will never GV in a scenario again.
I, for one, really loved this scenario. I loved the tank action, and I really enjoyed the both the failed attempts to take the German bases in the earlier frames, and the successful base captures later on in the scenario.
From my own personal point of view, I think the Russian forces worked very well indeed with each other. I think we showed pretty good tactical sense, worked well as a team to achieve our objectives, and had a really good time kicking German butt. I think the scenario rules were fair, and the forces well-balanced on paper, at least in terms of ground forces. I hope we do in fact have GV action in upcoming scenarios. I for sure will be there, and I know some others who feel the same way.
-
1st off vary well put IMO sethipus.
2nd looking at the logs
frame1 had 190's killing 3 GV's Vs the Il's killing 6
frame2 had 190's with 11 GV's killed Vs. Il's 0
frame3 had 190's with 3 GV kills Vs 1 for the Il's
frame4 had 190's with 8 Vs 1 kill by IL's
true the 190's and IL's may have tracked or turreted many more or helped a Tank by tracking or turreting a tank
but as we can see the 190's at first glance did a way better job than the IL-2's. the 190's won 25 to 8, that's 3x more kills credited to the 190's
As i said and as i see sethipus say, some tanks may have gotten credit for a kill after an aircraft attacked.
I would have to agree that we worked hard on our GV plan and if some guys want to call it quits because the plan they made failed then so be it.
Scenarios to me, are about having fun and planning with what you have to work with.
-
I think many of you are making assumptions. Only a couple of Axis players have said that they were not thrilled by the scenario. As I said in a early post, I had a great time. Until you poll every single GV player I think your assumptions are misguided.
The other thing I thought about as far as the ground war goes, maybe V-bases should not be made a capturable target. In my opinion it is to easy to capture a V-base. To shell down three hangers with 4-8 gv is not a difficult task. Also I would like to hope that the next scenario with ground vehicles the offensives and defensive are equal for both sides.
-
If only a few axis had problems what is this discussion about? If both sides had fun minus a few players I would say you have hit on a successful mix then. Thats the goal of a scenario have a large portion of the players that had a good time. Is it not?
If there are no issues thats great, we can use this layout with a few minor tweaks.
Strip
-
If only a few axis had problems what is this discussion about? If both sides had fun minus a few players I would say you have hit on a successful mix then. Thats the goal of a scenario have a large portion of the players that had a good time. Is it not?
If there are no issues thats great, we can use this layout with a few minor tweaks.
Strip
:aok
-
Frame 4 is interesting
The relative success of F8s agin GV's is interesting. You will note that only 4 x F8's were able to despatch a significantly higher number of enemy gv's.
Of course Kudos goes to the inherent skills involved but also look at where these F8's were in action. They were often able to re arm at the very fields they were defending! The LW had air superiority at this alt for these critical periods and inflicted damage way above their weight. Consider the rate of attrition on the allied gv's if these F8's were at full strength.
Now look at the 8 x IL2's. Logs seem to indicate that they spent much more time under attack from axis air superiority fighters than (proportionately) the F8's. Indeed when they had the luxury of working in an area of Allied air superiority they were used agin structures. From this we see they were never allowed to tip the balance in the ground war.
So we have the LW succeeding in denying IL2's access to the battlefield whilst the LW was able to get its F8's over the battlefield.............. and yet the Allies won............. why?
Well there were 14 Allied GV's to 8 Axis Gv's and deaths due to A2G did not count! they were merely inconvenient(requiring a respawn)! The LW's success to attrit via A2G did not carry the reward it should have. IMO the lesson to be learned here is that A2G deaths should count as much as any other. Indeed in an air combat scenario A2G deaths should take precedence even if other gameplay balances have to be added to maintain a viable ground war.
-
Nice analytical thoughts, Tilt :aok
Just thinking, likely an AI driven ground war is quite a long step to the future, but would it help at all if we had GV drones? ...like bombers do.
GV drones would pad out numbers but the discrepancies would still be massive. Plus there may be a mis balancing effect on the individuals game play. (e.g 2 players may be able to tip the balance agin 4 enemies....but could 2 +4 drones do such a thing agin 4 + 8 drones) A local mis balance in actual player numbers may magnify the numerical advantage of one side.
Is AI ground war so far off?
If we look at the offline mission planner already in game............
If we look at the Combat Air Patrol mission ware developed.................
Is a server driven AI ground war really so far in the future? If our virtual air battles took place over a terrain which itself was locked in a gv battle with which we could interact and influence how would that enhance our game play?
In Frame 4 The massive ground war that was the EF was represented by 14 Allied players v 8 Axis players! If it was 5 times that number we would still be short ! Now imagine those 14 or 8 adding their weight tactically (like a reserve) to key GV battle points influencing the local outcome.
-
Tilt,
Given unequal numbers the side with the most numbers will usually come out ahead. Who to blame for that is another matter.....
USRanger and the Allies put out advertising for drivers from frame 2 on for both sides. Naturally they pushed the for people to come for Allies a majority of the time. I did not see any public advertising for Axis specifically in any public forum setting. If I did not see it you can bet a large portion of the MA players did not. I think the current setup is very good as is and would like to see it tried again. Whether you included A2G kills is another discussion and debate. To question a setup that worked fairly well except for side balancing is unfortunate. Given equal numbers I think the results might have been closer to what they might have been expecting.
Another thing to consider is the Axis had the use of the best tank in AH. A small numbers penalty is to be expected once you consider the Tigers involvement. Perhaps next time Tiger drivers get one life less but equal number compared to enemy.
Strip
-
Tilt,
Given unequal numbers the side with the most numbers will usually come out ahead. Who to blame for that is another matter.....
........................ To question a setup that worked fairly well except for side balancing is unfortunate. Given equal numbers ..............Strip
There is no one to blame.............. side miss balances will occurr particularly when only so few players are used in such a critical element of game play.
Setup may benefit from the assumption that there may be an element of attendance misbalance..........there are several methods to over come this you alude to one. The designer is challenged to use one that has "best fit" into the gameplay and game rules.
The bias against A2G kills thwarts the objective of airsuperiority over the battlefield IMO.
To repeat .................from my perspective this was a fun scenario..............but then I was in an La7 :)
-
I wouldnt exactly call the tiger best in AH, the M4 is quite lethal to a tiger. If you are going to say 1 life for a Tiger, might as well say it for the M4 as well.
-
I wouldnt exactly call the tiger best in AH, the M4 is quite lethal to a tiger. If you are going to say 1 life for a Tiger, might as well say it for the M4 as well.
Judging by perk cost, eny, and K/d its certainly considered by the masses to be the best. Expert GV drivers may disagree but its as good of measure I can find for comparison. Although, I asked for 1 life less, ie instead of 4 the Tigers would get 3, and each side would have equal numbers.
In some ways a gun is a gun regardless of the tank its on.....
Strip
-
We were only alotted 6 tigers to your 8 M4s and and not sure on how many T-34/85 you were aloud. So thats two MA perked GVs, I don't see how changing the lives based on equipment will help GV scenarios.
-
You cant see how having eight Tigers (3 lifes) against eight M4 (4 lifes) would change things over the six vs eight (4 lifes each) under the current setup?
Strip
-
You cant see how having eight Tigers (3 lifes) against eight M4 (4 lifes) would change things over the six vs eight (4 lifes each) under the current setup?
Strip
I dont believe you flew in Dob....
-
You cant see how having eight Tigers (3 lifes) against eight M4 (4 lifes) would change things over the six vs eight (4 lifes each) under the current setup?
Strip
I misread the 8 tigers, none the less, its still the same. 24 lives for the tigers and 32 lives for Shermans, and T-34/85s. To me thats just manipulating the numbers.
-
Your right, I did not fly DOB, though an explanation on how the two relate would be welcomed.
I have read the rules for nearly every scenario, Krupp Steel is unique in many ways.
Strip
-
I misread the 8 tigers, none the less, its still the same. 24 lives for the tigers and 32 lives for Shermans, and T-34/85s. To me thats just manipulating the numbers.
Numbers are what scenarios are balanced by....the fight between the two would be vastly different though.
Strip
-
Your right, I did not fly DOB, though an explanation on how the two relate would be welcomed.
I have read the rules for nearly every scenario, Krupp Steel is unique in many ways.
Strip
Its not the rule writeup, its your assumption on the difference between the tiger and the firefly(not M4). The firefly proved that it could fight the tiger from long range or short range. The matchup of the firefly and the tiger was equal in DoB. As the tiger was being killed by shots from longer than 3k(could've been longer).
-
Well, I can agree with that to a point....
I still maintain the current setup should be run again with some little tweaks that others have mentioned.
Strip
-
Btw, which tank where you in Strip?
Nevermind, I checked the logs. :confused:
-
IMO the T34-85 was the real winner in this scenario, had the allies been held to equal numbers of M4's Vs Tigers and used the T34/76 and not the 85 the allies IMO would have had a much tougher time wining.
I don't think its broken but tweaks are in order....
If the rosters were full every day with equal Tiger to M4, and 1 squad of 85's and 1 squad of 76's to full squads of panzer's. I think the axis may have pulled it off.
Keep in mind during the real allied advance by the Russians they had the odds in there favor as well.
IMO the axis went about defence the wrong way, had I been defending i would have done what they did in frame 2 and more (as they denied us the one and only runway we can see they did well holding A7 that day.)
-
Btw, which tank where you in Strip?
Nevermind, I checked the logs. :confused:
I can see where this is headed, I should have known better than to have a constructive discussion. FYI, one of my good friends sat 10 feet away from me driving a GV on a spare computer. I have read nearly ever thread in Allies forum and heard a ton of vox chatter. Never mind I am in the process of designing a scenario for eventual submission to Brooke. Enjoy your sandbox...
Strip
-
]
IMO the T34-85 was the real winner in this scenario, had the allies been held to equal numbers of M4's Vs Tigers and used the T34/76 and not the 85 the allies IMO would have had a much tougher time wining.
I don't think its broken but tweaks are in order....
If the rosters were full every day with equal Tiger to M4, and 1 squad of 85's and 1 squad of 76's to full squads of panzer's. I think the axis may have pulled it off.
Keep in mind during the real allied advance by the Russians they had the odds in there favor as well.
IMO the axis went about defence the wrong way, had I been defending i would have done what they did in frame 2 and more (as they denied us the one and only runway we can see they did well holding A7 that day.)
In my opinion it is much more difficult to hold off an attack on a v-base vs an airbase. I truly think if the Allies were tasked with taking airbases the outcome may have been different. Of course this is all speculation.
Lets examine frame 4 (I cannot comment on frame 3 as I was not there due to PC issues). According to the rules: Phase Three (Frames 3 and 4)
Battle on the eastern bank of the Oder River. The Soviets are attempting to take A34, V23 and A68 (the Soviet Objective Bases). The Germans are defending but can counter attack at A31 (the German Objective Base).
In frame 4 we had one base only to persue a capture of. An airfield with one spawn, that was some distance from town or base. Approximatelty a 10 min drive by an Axis tank (drove it many times in planning for frame 4). The spawn from V30 (Allied base) to V23(Axis base) only takes 3-6 min depending on the vehicle you are assigned, and that is to the map room. This left us very little time to get setup up. Naturally the Allies used the higher ground to shell down the hangers and over run the base.
I left my five best tankers there at T-10 into the frame to defend while three of us ventured off to capture A31, and for the most part it worked. We did capture 31 but 23 fell to quickly for us to return and defend, with the other five tanks. We discussed this in great detail, our plan and what we figured you’d do. The Allies did exactly what we figured, shell the hangers and finish off the ground vehicles for the capture. Almost identical to the Allies capture frame one, take out the hangers and clear GVs.
You refer to frame 2 where we held off the attempt at A7. We actually did that with about 6 guys (had a couple of discos and walk offs). But the spawn into A7 was longer and it was a town full of buildings the Allies had to take down.
In my eyes that is the major difference. Even with our number differnces, I feel that if the Allies would have had to attack A34 first before they were aloud to capture V23, the outcome may have been different. And again this is all speculation and there is really no way to tell, just my humble opinion.
I don’t know if eliminating GV base captures or setting an “Order of Capture” would help even this out, but may be worth looking into.
I can see where this is headed, I should have known better than to have a constructive discussion. FYI, one of my good friends sat 10 feet away from me driving a GV on a spare computer. I have read nearly ever thread in Allies forum and heard a ton of vox chatter. Never mind I am in the process of designing a scenario for eventual submission to Brooke. Enjoy your sandbox...
Strip
Before you throw your hands up, I was just trying to figure out how you knew so much about how all the tanks operated, and the feelings of the tankers.
-
] But the spawn into A7 was longer and it was a town full of buildings the Allies had to take down.
Plus the drive into A7 town (IIRC) took the allies past A7 Field...............
I think A7 was the hardest objective of the scenariuo capture wise............... Vehicle fields are easier (in their default state) to take than some air fields so there may be an arguement for them earning less points yet A64 was "sneaked" twice! (Axis didn't see this coming in F4? or just had insufficient numbers to defend?)
Showng that the numbers misbalance was critical when so few GV players were actually "in game".
IMO Gv's should be open to all players as secondary rides (Jeeps, M16's, maybe even M8's) when such low numbers turn up. Gv lives should be measured in vehicles lost not players killed. It adds some difficulties for the CM but not insurmountable ones.
-
Before you throw your hands up, I was just trying to figure out how you knew so much about how all the tanks operated, and the feelings of the tankers.
Well the feelings of the Axis tankers I cant comment on other than whats been posted here, when the forums open it will be evident that the Allies had blast.
I would have joined the Allied GV's but I wanted to GL and USRanger was already slated for that area.
Strip
-
If you look at the statistics over several months in the MA on Tiger vs. Firefly, the Tiger does kill the Firefly more often than vise versa. I don't recall anymore what the stats are, but it's something like 1.3:1 ratio or something like that. Yeah, the Firefly does kill the Tiger a lot, but it's not equal to it in that way. The Firefly does kill the Tiger more easily than any other tank does, of course.
I don't agree that Tiger drivers should have fewer lives. As we can see, if the Tiger drivers are in wooded areas, or in cities, and a smart T34 driver can take advantage of the T34's strengths, the Tigers go down in droves. To back that up, I killed 11 Tigers in frame 4 in my T34-85. I could not have done that in Dawn of Battle, where the wide open terrain would make it very difficult to exploit the T34's main strengths.
I think the Panzer drivers had it the worst off in this scenario. They were outclassed by both the M4 and the T34-85. The T34-85 was really only challenged by the Tiger - it should dominate the Panzer.
I don't think that the T34-76 is the answer to balance this. It's essentially useless against Tigers, and is dominated by the Panzer if not well-played. The T34-76 drivers wouldn't even come back after frame 1 of any scenario, because they would be sick and tired of getting pwned over and over again.
I think the key for a scenario like this is to keep the numbers even. The fact that we had 4 to 6 more players on the Allied side in the last two frames was probably the single most important decisive factor in our victories in those frames.
As far as the vbase vs. airbase thing goes, sure, taking a vbase is easier than taking an air base. Nobody will argue with that. It's also the easier of the two to take back. And the Axis did pull off a surprise (to us) take-back of V23 later on in Frame 4.
Perhaps we could have a scenario where it's 60% Panzers and 40% Tigers on the Axis side, and 100% T34-85s on the Allied side. Eliminating the Firefly would allow the Tiger an increased margin of dominance, that might well balance out the dominance that the T34-85 would have over the Panzer and even things up.
-
That was a very nice write up Seth. And you are right. We realized the panzers weakness to the M4 and /85. We used our panzers for mainly town defense. And our numbers show, 160 kills for the Tiger group, and 30 for the Panzer group.
Its a tough call, to limit types of GVs or type of bases to be captured. Again I think if some people hadn't quit after frame 1 the outcome may have been different, and trust me I do not fault the Allies on that one, and will keep my opinion to myself too :D A lot of varibles. I'd like to hear more from the CM's on their thoughts on how to create a happy medium
-
As far as ground support from the air, I know the 190-F8 pilots must have worked hard practicing that rocketing technique. During frame 1 I was tracked by a 190 using rockets, in a very spot spot, where multiple Tigers and Panzers had shots at me from 2000-3000 yards away, and I was eventually killed. In frame 4 I went out with two or three others at V23 to patrol the perimeter and see if anything was going on when some F8s attacked us, and I and another one or two of us were outright killed by their rockets.
I can only say, after spending 30 minutes in a Tiger turning in circles under bomb after bomb in Frame one.... I wanted revenge. I transferred to 190F8's and 9 of the 25 kills the ground attack F-8s had against GV's were mine. The shape charged rockets the 190F8 carries are the best gv busting rockets in game, and I sighted them in perfectly. 7 of those 9 kills were with rockets.
I will not waste my time again in GV's, and I really like ground tactics. In Tunisia, it was the lack of historical perspective, namely the fact that a ground battle only erupted there due to the weather grounding aircraft from both sides, that ruined it. Looking at the real life Air Force sorties, it wasn't until day 4 that a single flight of P39's even got to Kasserine Pass. IMO, that should have been modeled into the Scenario. Instead a bomb fest erupted there. I'm sure any Battle of the Bulge Scenario would be ruined in exactly the same way.
As far as this scenario, as it has been pointed out, you can't be in people's cockpits. Using bombs to mark tanks....."it's not dive bombing.. it's glide bombing"....The rules strictly said, no group was permitted to even attack a tank unless it was the designated squad. Attack is not defined by success or failure in the dictionary. Yaks strafed the pintle off of both Ooz's and my Tiger in Frame one. This, combined with the fact, that any axis air cover was 20 minutes away, while the allies were 6 minutes away at most from the start of every frame.....C'mon, this scenario was tilted at the start, for one CM to win.
Yes, airpower affected gv operations in real life. But, in real life, aircraft couldn't see GV's at 1.5K (~5,000 feet) in heavy cover either, with a big bright red tag. Whole battalions of tanks moved under cover without being sighted once, in real life.
In AH, the superman eyes of the ground attackers will always tilt the battle in the favor of the air. Hence, until this is dealt with, I will not participate in ground operations again. The last two scenarios showed no way in making it fun.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with hermetically sealing the GV portion of a Scenario from the rest.That is, unless you get rid of the icons from the air.
-
Im taking my ball and going home :furious
-
C'mon, this scenario was tilted at the start, for one CM to win.
:rofl
Just for Your information, the rules were presented to both me and Swareiam/RedTail7 at the same time in 99% complete form AND it was up to us to choose our sides. I said I was fine either way and Swareiam wanted to lead the axis side. So that is how the sides got picked.
-
Implying that the scenario was specifically setup for one side to win is absolute crap.
Strip
-
C'mon, this scenario was tilted at the start, for one CM to win.
Wow...
-
Moray, the sad thing is that some really great tank battles were fought during this scenario. Especially in the last two frames. If you had been on the ground during these frames, you would probably have loved it.
-
Implying that the scenario was specifically setup for one side to win is absolute crap.
Strip
One side was completely unbalanced. That's fact.
Axis air cover was always more than 20 minutes away at the start of any frame. Usually 3 sectors or more from takeoff field. Allied air cover showed up in the first frame, exactly 4 minutes and 32 seconds into the frame. Want the film?
Axis had 6 guys in Tigers. Allies 14 in M4's and T3485's. And the rest in T3476's.... that can handle a Tiger round from the front.
To say the field was not slanted in any way is simply retarded. The end result was never in any sort of doubt. Not even close.
-
One side was completely unbalanced. That's fact.
Axis air cover was always more than 20 minutes away at the start of any frame. Usually 3 sectors or more from takeoff field. Allied air cover showed up in the first frame, exactly 4 minutes and 32 seconds into the frame. Want the film?
Axis had 6 guys in Tigers. Allies 14 in M4's and T3485's. And the rest in T3476's.... that can handle a Tiger round from the front.
To say the field was not slanted in any way is simply retarded. The end result was never in any sort of doubt. Not even close.
It was unbalanced because lack of players in GV's on the Axis side, you need to check yourself when blaming that on the designers. Axis had a comparable force, with around 45% of the total players, the slots were available to be used. Maybe you should pose that question to your leadership and command structure, especially the walkon handler.
On the Allies bomber and vehicle regiments were given a large portion of the walkons to make sure those slots were filled.
How you organized your personnel is not anything to do with the CM's or the creation of the scenario layout.
In any event Allies had a tough run at the strats the first few frames, especially the first two. We flew two sorties the entire frame, one lasting 1:30 and another around 1:45 round trip. You see me complaining about it? No, was it comparatively more difficult than the axis targets? Heck yes it was, all the more reason to celebrate and pat each other on the back when the frame was over.
More and more I am seeing poor sports and sore losers this scenario....sometimes your the bug, sometimes your the windshield.
Strip
-
In any event Allies had a tough run at the strats the first few frames, especially the first two.
You captured the first Vbase during the first frame, in 21 minutes.
How hard did you have it again?
-
More and more I am seeing poor sports and sore losers this scenario....sometimes your the bug, sometimes your the windshield.
Strip
Strip, nothing poor or sore about it. If it's not fun, don't expect many more of these things to happen. People eventually stop trying to make things better and just walk away. Many GV'rs are walking away.
As far as the GV aspect is concerned, that's about where I am. There's enough to deal with as far as girlfriend/wife ack on a saturday for four hours for 4 straight weeks, than to also not enjoy your time playing a game.
-
It was unbalanced because lack of players in GV's on the Axis side, you need to check yourself when blaming that on the designers. Axis had a comparable force, with around 45% of the total players, the slots were available to be used. Maybe you should pose that question to your leadership and command structure, especially the walkon handler.
Strip
Lack of GV's? WE WERE FULL IN FRAME ONE.
And I will blame the design, thank you. Again, 14 to 6 in perked GV's, with aircover for the soviets within 4 minutes and 30 seconds of takeoff, frame one.
I hate to think what you think balanced is.
-
Thats funny, I thought strat was short for strategic targets, like ammo, flak, troop factories and cities? Read some of my AAR's, we went on some very deep strike missions. They were tough, sometimes ugly, but I enjoyed every minute of it.
I am done Moray, you continue to blame the wrong people for a problem your own side had the most effect on.
Strip
-
One last bit for giggles since you are stuck on the perk aspect....
The Allies could use all of their GV's in the MA for around 60 perks for 14 drivers. The Axis would have around 180 perks, hardly even if you base it solely off perks.
If you consider my perk argument invalid, then it certainly negates your argument about 14 vs 6 in perk vehicles.
Strip
-
Thats funny, I thought strat was short for strategic targets, like ammo, flak, troop factories and cities? Read some of my AAR's, we went on some very deep strike missions. They were tough, sometimes ugly, but I enjoyed every minute of it.
I am done Moray, you continue to blame the wrong people for a problem your own side had the most effect on.
Strip
Ohhhhhh a tough run on strategic targets. Poor you. So you mean you could actually shoot back though?
Yeah, I couldn't. Even when I could shoot back with a pintle gun (whilst avoiding "marking" bombs), it was strafed off against the rules (as well as three other Axis gvr's) , by a yak.
I'm finished, as well. A bomber pilot in this scenario, that didn't even participate in the ground action, is telling me I'm wrong.
-
Show me were that makes my opinion invalid or wrong....
Never mind my friendship with a ground vehicle player that did drive in some frames and watching a butt load of film from both sides.
Strip
-
Every scenario has had and will always have it's arguments that challenge teamwork to exist. Those who overcome these challenges and come together to work as a team are usually the victors in both the fun and strategical factors. Without teamwork, you've already lost, regardless of what the outcome is via points.
-
Every scenario I've been in has a group of people (5-10 out of 150-250) who get upset because there is some aspect to the scenario that they believe is intolarably incorrect.
What most people don't realize is that, in a scenario where an aspect can be A or B, there is always a group that is positive that A is best and another group that is just as positive that B is best.
For example, in this topic, there are statements about how things were badly biased towards the Russian side, yet there were folks just as sure that the opposite was true:
I've just read the rules and it will be a successfully German biased scenario.
How can I remove my registration ?
I don't want to be involved in this joke.
84 fighter on the russian side
116 on the german side
Nothing even at start add to this the little details and the outcome of the event will be : German side victory
Russian side should be on offensive without having the mean to do it.
That's stupid.
Still I don't understand how the soviet side can be on offensive with less fighter and fighter of less quality (read 39q) and useless strat bomber (read b25).
I didn't read all of the rules but the thing that immediately jumped out at me is that you guys are going to require the Russian players to be offensive with even force numbers. That pretty much means the Germans win, period.
I did read the writeup at the start of the thread before I read any other post. It listed historical numbers of 5000 Russian aircraft and 1800 German aircraft, yet in the scenario you turned that into German numeric equality or even superiority.
Why sign up for something that has a scripted outcome? Where is the fun in that?
What we do in design is our best to pick a good balance among historical elements, playability, and action (some of which pull in opposite directions). We aren't perfect and don't have a crystal ball. What we pick is unlikely to be perfect, but it is the best we can figure after putting in a lot of thought. No matter what we pick, some group somewhere is going to be sure that we are wrong. That is human nature. Unfortunately, it is also human nature for some of those folks to severely criticize us for what we pick. That adds a lot of unpleasantness to the process, not just for us scenario CM's (who are just players, like you guys, but volunteering our time to help run these things) but for other players as well who don't enjoy the negativity and the conflict. I wish that there could be more tolerance.
-
Well said Brooke.....
I am done with this, what had been a constructive conversation has now deteriorated into something else.
Looking forward to the next scenario very much!
Strip
-
I find it so ironic that if the later frames in the GV part of this scenario were in fact unbalanced, and I will agree they probably were, it was only because of a drop of numbers on the Axis side because of the people who quit earlier on.
I think those who stuck it out for the whole scenario, at least on the Allied side, and at least some on the Axis side, had a good time, and some good tank fighting was experienced and enjoyed immensely. If the Axis had just had 4 or 5 more people, who likely quit earlier on, they would have made it much, much more competitive.
"This scenario sucks, and I'm going to do everything I can to make sure I'm right."
Also - pintle gun? Moray, you were driven from your GV because you lost your pintle gun? So what? What were you expecting you would do with it that was frustrated by that dasturdly Yak pilot?
My T34-85 has never had a pintle gun at all - and it never stopped me. :rock
-
Another aspect that has been brought up in this topic is quitting because of CM decisions.
By the time CM's decide on an issue, we have already thought it over as best we can and are doing what we think is correct. Again, we understand that whether we pick A or B, there will be others who are convinced that the opposite is correct. However, even though it's not a perfect process, going with what we believe is correct is the very best that we can manage. We especially cannot say, "Well, doing A is what we think is correct, but because a person is threatening to quit, we'll do what we think is wrong so that he'll stay."
For this reason, all that is accomplished by quitting is to punish one's own team mates. It is similar to being angry with the referee or organizer of a game, quitting, and leaving the rest of the team short handed. Players in adult sports know those ramifications. Scenarios are no less a team activity, where the team relies on its players. It is particularly harmful to a side when the person quitting is an important player, such as a GL.
A CO needs to rely on GL's to be there, to participate, to help recruit, to run their groups in battle, and to stick with it even if the going is tough. Thus, while CO's are prefectly free to pick whom they desire in key roles, CO's tend not to pick from people who in the past got upset and quit.
Anyway, I am not posting the above to cause more arguments. I don't want to debate anyone in an effort to change his or her mind about any of the above. I just wanted to give my view on what such things do and what such things don't do.
-
Also - pintle gun? Moray, you were driven from your GV because you lost your pintle gun? So what? What were you expecting you would do with it that was frustrated by that dasturdly Yak pilot?
Yes that is just a small infraction, but that is after being bombed "marked" another small infraction and the discrepancy in too many lives and it all adds up to a lot of frustration. But as "Tony" would say.... "what you gonna do".
-
Thanks for sticking it out, Kansas2. It was fun fighting against you guys, and I'm glad you stayed with it and gave it your best shot.
-
I will echo Broke on the "quitting" and "Blaming Command" issues as childish ranting. We can disagree, but this went way overboard. I didn't agree on the call, but it was made and that's it. The Axis and Axis Command was put into a rather precarious position and adjustments had to be made. Nuff Said. That part is done and it should be a dead horse. Don't continue to beat it.
To the topic and a bit more,
I made a post and latter observation that the numbers of bombers and GVs should be equal. Allied get 24 bombers, Axis get 24. 1 or 2 lives each. (that is a period on the end) Either you fill the positions or you don't, recruit.
Also, IMO, and I'll use Frames 3 & 4. The setup is A31 (V31) is the AXIS Objective. It's a small airfield. The Allies had a mix, V23 a real V Base, and A34 and A68 small airfields. There should have been NO Aircraft in that area. <nother period there> No Air Cover, No Attack Aircraft of any kind. Let me finish. These should have been treated like a "Tank Town" and no planes allowed. - Even as spotters.
I continue. The battlefield is then decided by equal numbers of tanks and supply vehicles. If your hangars are down, too bad. Maybe it's that way for the whole frame too. If captured, you can't and don't get it back either. (that's a maybe - but resets next frame)
In this case, a FAC can call a bomber strike on an "Objective" airfield's town only. Level Bombers Only. The F8s and IL2s can mop up buildings only to effect the capture. GVs killed by a 10K level bomber dropping into a town - yer dead pal and no one can complain. Any GV outside of the town "pad" may not be killed by bombs. <again-a period> It means a stray egg might cause a death but it's not a life-and may sway a capture. Remembering the wind might have influenced it and therefore if that is a wind-drift kill, then it should stand. I venture to say, a 2 bldg distance might be observed from the towns edge ... longer, then it's not a life or kill, but tragic. (I might amend that but just a guide)
I know the design was meant to have attack aircraft, let them attack and clean up for the bombers on towns and strats. Maybe also include all active airbases as a suitable bomber/attack aircraft target as well. This gives the bombers more opportunity to go undetected NOE, or in at high altitudes with Fighter and attack craft in tow. It might increase the time the players have in their rides, allow them all to live to the end of the event, etc, etc, etc.
If it's a points thing, then lets even up the GVs and Bomber numbers for both sides. (attendance not-with-standing)
Hope I didn't ramble too much. Certainly food for thought and I may have overlooked or misread this post's intentions.
-
"This scenario sucks, and I'm going to do everything I can to make sure I'm right."
Also - pintle gun? Moray, you were driven from your GV because you lost your pintle gun? So what? What were you expecting you would do with it that was frustrated by that dasturdly Yak pilot?
The first frame of the scenario sucked. I'm not the only one who thought so, on the ground as Axis tanker. Four and a half minutes into the frame, there were 18 IL2's hovering over us. Great design.
It's my time and afternoon, so I will do with it as I see fit. I did not quit, I wanted to have fun and help those who I knew were "just sticking it out" on the ground. I moved to 190F8's and proceeded to have the most Air to Ground kills out of anyone in the scenario.
The pintle gun was the straw. I did not sign up to circle under constant air attack, as a repeat of Tunisia by extension of the MA. This is what I was told the rules would be, and is not what they were in practice. And, until someone can make a scenario that is GV centric, built around the reasons why there were tank vs tank battles in the first place, you will not find me in another tank in a scenario again. Period.
I tried it twice and both times were horrible. The last time (Tunisia) I "stuck it out" and didn't even want to log in for the scenario after the 2nd frame. I didn't make the same mistake here, and ended up having a great time with a great bunch of guys in the F-8's.
-
Every scenario has had and will always have it's arguments that challenge teamwork to exist. Those who overcome these challenges and come together to work as a team are usually the victors in both the fun and strategical factors. Without teamwork, you've already lost, regardless of what the outcome is via points.
Correct.
There is no question to any competent analyst that the Axis had a bit tougher of a road to hoe...that was crystal clear in the early/initial rule releases...however, none of the challenges they faced were insurmountable due to the 'design'.
There was simply little if any margin for error at any level for the Axis in the broader perspective.
The Allies simply took somewhat favorable circumstance, and leveraged that with a better than an 'average' plan...
Its nothing more than that...
The designers of the Scenarios are as much a part of the game as each of us...it would be wise to recognize that, appreciate the work they do, and constructively exchange ideas and information to make the next design better...
Oneway
-
The pintle gun was the straw.
The low-level logs track every bullet fired and every bullet hit. The low-level logs for frame 1 show you being hit only by GV's and Il-2's. There are no "bad guy damage" lines on you from any Yak (or A-20, La-5, La-7, or B-25).
If you were hit by a Yak, then HTC's low-level log code possibly has a bug that we should report. If your film shows you getting hit by a Yak in frame 1, can you send the relevant snippet to me so that I can take a look to verify and then send to HTC along with the relevant portion of the low-level log?
My e-mail address is brooke "at" electraforge.com
-
Well, fortunately for the Axis, I think that first frame was probably the only one where they had IL-2s really doing much to them. Most of this scenario is was really good tank on tank fighting, the way God meant it to be. :D
-
I love it when people get fed the truth.... can wait for the responce....
-
Couple clarifications of some posts above.
There were 14 Axis GVers in frame 1, not the full 20.
The numbers were as follows;
Soviet German
F1 14 14
F2 10 12
F3 20 12
F4 14 8
Also in Frame 1 the base was captured at 43 minutes +/- into the frame not 21 minutes.
Thanks to both sides for their participation, but especially to those on the Axis side who remained and those who stepped up to command positions.
-
I pulled this from a thread in the GF:
Base captures and short drives to targets are in my eyes is the major issue with Scenerios with GVs. I, myself thought the interaction between planes and GVs was right for RS/KS (as long as each side sticks to the rules)
In all fairness the pilots have to fly 30-40min before they see some action. Why shouldn't GVs? Perhaps instead of a base capture, the GVs goal is to defend/destroy a strat target. Once the new AH strat system is in place this maybe more possible.
Picture this:
An arty factory burried deep in a city, each side has a spawn on the opposite side of the city, both maybe 20min drive from the strat. One side is tasked with destroying the factory for 25-30 points. Once the factory is reduced to zero then the points are awarded. Then onto the next strat target. (Perhaps an order of destruction). If the other side keep the strat intact through the frame they are awarded the points.
Thats a very rough idea of what I'd like to see. Still writing notes down as I think of things.
-
I looked back at my earlier suggestion on a Normandy Invasion Scenario. http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,237822.0.html
There are a significant number of GV "only" rides in this idea. A few C47's to drop troops behind the front and maybe even a few with the "dead stick" option of landing troops and supps (jeeps etc) that act as gliders.
I still think this is a viable Scenario and I would enjoy being a German SB Gunner or LVT driver! :) Flying 20+ C47s inland at night would be cool. Incorporating a night time element would also be a hoot for the early hours of the invasion.
The question came up in the original post about the AXIS being asleep and not responding immediately. Well, that's a "Disable" option for some guns or defensive measures that could be "Enabled" after the start. Or just instead of Go Go Go the CM could announce...... "OPEN FIRE" :rofl
I'd think this would be a great GV opportunity.
-
Ken, that sounds pretty cool.
-
Its not the rule writeup, its your assumption on the difference between the tiger and the firefly(not M4). The firefly proved that it could fight the tiger from long range or short range. The matchup of the firefly and the tiger was equal in DoB. As the tiger was being killed by shots from longer than 3k(could've been longer).
I call bulls*** on this. I was there for DoB. I'm a Sherman driver by preference, and frankly one of the better shots in the game, and I know where the kill spots are. I couldn't kill a Tiger at over 2.5K no matter how hard I tried, even a perfect beam shot on tread trim. Had unbelievable trouble with one Tiger, hitting him THREE TIMES with exactly a 2K shot, top down on his turret top from elevation above him (about 400-500m. elev.) All three hits would be normally be kill shots in the MA. Didn't smoke him, hurt him or stop him. Most memorable moment in the whole scernario. That and being killed by Moray in his tiger from 5K, shooting up at us sitting on our base. The strange and unusual inability to kill Tigers with normal mid-range hits was second most frequent topic for Allied tankers.
Never heard any Allied tanker claim a 3K kill on a Tiger with a Sherman, though there might have been one I didn't hear about.
-
I call bulls*** on this. I was there for DoB. I'm a Sherman driver by preference, and frankly one of the better shots in the game, and I know where the kill spots are. I couldn't kill a Tiger at over 2.5K no matter how hard I tried, even a perfect beam shot on tread trim. Had unbelievable trouble with one Tiger, hitting him THREE TIMES with exactly a 2K shot, top down on his turret top from elevation above him (about 400-500m. elev.) All three hits would be normally be kill shots in the MA. Didn't smoke him, hurt him or stop him. Most memorable moment in the whole scernario. That and being killed by Moray in his tiger from 5K, shooting up at us sitting on our base. The strange and unusual inability to kill Tigers with normal mid-range hits was second most frequent topic for Allied tankers.
Never heard any Allied tanker claim a 3K kill on a Tiger with a Sherman, though there might have been one I didn't hear about.
Well, I never even knew I got a kill that far out, thanks. I remember lobbing them back at you ridge hoppers, but don't remember killing anyone. :salute
We lost at least two (I think 3, but don't know for sure) Tigers to long range rounds that came from your shermans in DOB. I personally lost a turret and had to re-up, when we owned that base on Kasserine Pass. Apparently, past 4K or so, you can't even see or hear the rounds unless they hit you (I can obviously attest to this). One Tiger exploded 200 yards away from me, without ever seeing a single round on base for 10 mins.
I'll dig the film up for you if I still have it.
-
If I might make a suggestion that could take this forward (maybe). I would like to build on some of Tilt's first post which makes the statement "
the objective (in this case) was to bring combat down to an altitude that was representative of the conflict.
.
His first conclusion is Hence GV's require maximum access (from any field) and few limitations on lives available (although some limitation on vehicle types is advisable).
I believe that the major problem with DoB, which was repeated here to a lesser extent, was the effort to funnel and contain the GV action by design rules. No doubt it was done with the very best of intentions. Surely it was done to guarantee action for the GV element given the planned low number of participants.
In my opinion this apparent solution creates a greater problem. Once you confine the attack to a single base or line of advance you have completely contained the ground war in a small bowl. You lose freedom of manouvre and freedom of action. A lot of the time you are forced to spawn and just sit. If you are defending you are forced to sit still in cover and wait to be bombed out. If you are attacking you are forced to get your spawn cleared by bombing out or you are in great danger of being camped and knocked out of the game very early. Once you roll as an attacker your line of advance has to be cleared for you as well if it is open country. DoB was the very epitome of this problem. You have to seriously love tanking to enjoy that concept.
The last two frames of this scenario gave much greater freedom and mobility to the gv element. I would warrant that this ability to move the attacking front rapidly reduced the ability of a defender to bottle-up and simply pound down an attack force. An ability to attack on a broader front by the Axis would have reduced the effect of Il2s immediately. In order to respond to attacks on a broader front, a commander has to utilise the air elements differently as well as the ground elements. An attacking commander also has to coordinate the use of his air elements with ground rather than just keep pushing them into the cauldron at the highest level they can climb to whilst trying to gain an initial advantage.
I would be willing to lay a wager, of maybe 3 cents, that the Allied side were so busy attacking their multitude of targets in the last two frames that they were kept exceptionally busy and therefore enjoying themselves. They didn't have time to get grumpy. I might go out on a limb and guess that a lack of numbers on the Axis side and perhaps a lack of ability to respond, left a feeling of hopelessness at times. What I did definitely observe on the Allied side was that the planning was so thorough that it led to such a high level of confidence, that even when presented with what may have been major setbacks, they were shrugged off with a "don't worry we'll grab that base back in 30 minutes".
-
I would be willing to lay a wager, of maybe 3 cents, that
do you carry a purse?
No Skuzzy dont do it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But that aside he has a point. if the design removes options from a side/a group/a squad to modify their game plan in game. Then you remove their opportunity to modify their actions for greater enjoyment....... which (the modification) hopefully is also condusive to greater success and reward.
-
This is the Allied GV plan for Frame 1. It's a bit long, so bear with me. It's a copy & paste from the Allied forum. I just wanted to show this to go along with what Dantoo was saying. Maybe we overdid it, but it was enjoyable to plot & plan. I look forward to seeing the other side's plans & see how they went about it.
Tankers, your orders
Comrades, we will be launching a glorious assault on the enemy's V36. We will be attacking from 2 spawn points, one to the North, the other to the South. The following order applies to all 3 Regiments: After spawning, you will proceed to your designated rally point and form a defensive position (hiding out) until friendly air assets are 10 miles from V36, at which point I will give the general attack command and we will begin our assault. Here are the orders for each Regiment:
119th Regiment:
You will spawn north from 47 to a point south of V36. Large hills separate you from the field. Your orders are to proceed northwest and seize the ridge overlooking the plain below, which contains the spawn from the enemy's A56. You will set up a defensive line on the ridge and overwatch the area in front of you. Your holding position has beed codenamed X-ray. When in position, you will report "X-ray secure" to me. Your responsibility during our waiting-for-the-bombers phase is to hold that ridge, protect our spawn, and stop and enemy armor coming from 56's spawn trying to reinforce V36. You have a good view of their approach and I'm counting on you to stop them using long range accurate fire and shoot & scoot movements to keep your exact positions from being zeroed in on. If you are fired on by tanks on the hills south of the field, use the terrain for cover to get out of sight. We don't want to get in a slugfest at this point, especially if they have elevation.
When the general attack order is given, you will proceed down the ridge to its base(giving you cover from any enemy tanks that made it atop the hills S. of V36) and follow it until you come out on the southern edge of V36. There you will (a) assault the field en mass from the southwest side or (b) if they are spawning in from 56, split into two teams. Team Alpha will assault the field and Team Bravo will keep the enemy coming from 56's spawn at bay and out of the fight on the field. Flight17 will make the call on site as to which plan needs to be put in place. The original plan is to have both A & B teams at 3 tanks apiece, but if there is heavy resistance from 56's spawn, the force can be divided up as necessary. You are responsible for the southern third of this field gentlemen. I want all ack and enemy armor destroyed. Friendly air will support the attack on the hangers. With any luck, they will drop the hangers just after the attack starts and we can clean up enemy GVs and get it done fast. We only have 10 minutes for hangers down in this. The first 2 of your Regiment to die are to grab M3s and to proceed as safely to the field as safety permits, and await the call for troops.
Option B is to assault the field through a cut in the hills if necessary. While it is a little faster to field than the primary plan, to fire on the field you have to sit on the opposing side of the hill, at a steep angle, and expose your tank to every swingin' deek with a gun. Another problem with Option B is you will beat your sister Regiments to the field by a wide margin and will be facing the enemy alone for too long.
In the event that the enemy would be foolish enough to attack in force over the hills S. of 36 while you are holding your initial ridge, your order is to do a fighting withdrawal to the South, suckering as many enemy tanks as possible away from their field & support. So, if attacked over those hills, withdraw South until the terrain benefits you and form a defensive line and hold. Good luck Comrades :salute
(http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/5421/spawnfrom47.jpg) (http://img21.imageshack.us/i/spawnfrom47.jpg/)
(http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/5526/spawnfrom47obj1.jpg) (http://img199.imageshack.us/i/spawnfrom47obj1.jpg/)
(http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/1543/enemyspawnfrom56.jpg) (http://img197.imageshack.us/i/enemyspawnfrom56.jpg/)
(http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/643/spawnfrom47obj2.jpg) (http://img197.imageshack.us/i/spawnfrom47obj2.jpg/)
(http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/2995/spawnfrom47obj3.jpg) (http://img197.imageshack.us/i/spawnfrom47obj3.jpg/)
(http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/6030/spawnfrom47obj4.jpg) (http://img21.imageshack.us/i/spawnfrom47obj4.jpg/)
18th Regiment:
Comrades, you will spawn S. from A19 to the backside of the hills to the north of V36. You will proceed East (your left), using the backside of the hill for cover, until you come to a cut in the hills NE of the field. This is the enemy's fastest avenue of approach to get in the hills near our spawn. You will form a defensive line on the crest of the hill near the cut, and overwatch this area for any & all enemy activity. This position is codenamed Yankee. When in position, it will be reported "Yankee secure". You will be providing cover for the 55th Regiment during their movement and helping watch the southwestern area of the field to provide intelligence to the 119th positioned on the ridge south of the field. When the general assault command is given, you will proceed on line down the hill and attack the field from the north. Use your long range capability and good use of cover. Friendly air will help to mark targets. When you reach the edge of the field, I want all the M4s to lay down a thick smokescreen across the field (and don't forget the tower). I want as much enemy confusion as we can cause. By the time the smoke is laid, the hangers should be down, with only some cleanup to do. M3s will use this smokescreen to move onto the field. If you are on the field and not engaged, I want you to move to the maproom to cover M3s. Your job is to protect the troops!
A note: DR7 is on the enemy side. He can hit a tank at insane ranges on the first or second shot. So even if you are long range fighting with the enemy, make sure you are using good use of cover and displace to another position often. I recommend after every 2nd shot.
Option B is a more westerly approach to the field if the enemy somehow controls the original assault area or the hills above.
Good luck Comrades :salute
(http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/1664/spawnfrom19.jpg) (http://img87.imageshack.us/i/spawnfrom19.jpg/)
(http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/8379/spawnfrom19m4obj1.jpg) (http://img202.imageshack.us/i/spawnfrom19m4obj1.jpg/)
(http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/2554/spawnfrom19m4obj2.jpg) (http://img8.imageshack.us/i/spawnfrom19m4obj2.jpg/)
55th Regiment:
You are to spawn S. out of 19 to the hills N. of V36 with the 18th. You will also head east (your left), following the 18th. The 18th will take up a covering position at the cut in the hills N. of V36. Once they have you covered, your Regiment will cross the backside of the cut and proceed up the opposing hill onto the ridge on the northeast side of V36, which overlooks the field. Be sure to stay away from the field side of the ridge, so as not to be seen by the enemy. I want your movement as secret as possible for as long as we can. When you get to your staging area overlooking the field, shut down and don't take any pot shots, fire only if attacked directly. Your staging position is codenamed Zulu. When in position, you will report to me "Zulu secure". If somehow the enemy gets in the hills and threatens your position, withdraw back to the 18th. From their position, they can overlook & cover your entire route. If all is good, when the general attack order is given, you are to start raining hell down on the enemy on the field. This will work in conjunction with friendly bombers dropping on the field. When your sister Regiments reach the edge of the field, you are to charge down the hill onto the northeast side of the field, completing our three pronged attack. Hangers will be down fairly quickly (I hope) and all you should have to deal with is any remaining GVs and any ack that survived. You men are the hammer against the anvil that comprise the 119th & 18th. Most enemy tanks will have their backs to you. I want you to come charging down that hill and smack em like they owe ya money. The smoke from the M4s should cover your rapid decent down the slope. Good luck Comrades. :salute
The first two of this Regiment killed need to grab M3s for their 2nd life and spawn back in from 19 when able.
(http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/553/spawnfrom19t34obj1.jpg) (http://img199.imageshack.us/i/spawnfrom19t34obj1.jpg/)
(http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/1892/spawnfrom19t34obj2.jpg) (http://img62.imageshack.us/i/spawnfrom19t34obj2.jpg/)
An overview of the attack:
(http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/8674/overviewev.jpg) (http://img35.imageshack.us/i/overviewev.jpg/)
-
We need drooling smiley face. :D
:salute USRanger
"Sloehand's DoB team vs USRanger's RSKS team" Imagine the level of organization, teamwork and the epic fight that would ensue.
:cheers:
-
Unlimited freedom for the GVs leads only to sneak tactics, avoiding fights, the equivelant of MA "milk running" -- because 99% of MA GVs only spawn camp or they try to sneak past some defense to spawn camp (or rarely, take a field).
The structure in scenarios is NEEDED to make them actually FACE each other as they did historically. Imagine if the entire Red Storm all the 190Ds and K4s and Las and Yaks ran 100 miles away screaming for help any time an enemy showed up in icon range (like most do in the MAs?)
It's not conducive to a scenario to give "free range" for GVs, IMO. There will always have to be regulations and rules. GVs ought to have limited lives just as planes ought to. Otherwise... guess what? You're back to the MA. This ain't the MA! It NEVER has been, and should never become it in the future. Scenario pilots get that, and enjoy it. GV players either don't get that, but can change, or won't enjoy it, and would rather go back to the MA hum-drum.
The question is: Can you muster the enthusiasm to follow somebody else's orders, some pre-set rules, and try to get the job done in a semi-historical way? If so you're already set for scenarios! If not there will never be any pleasing you all. (I say you all since I'm not a major tanker. I dabble in it and witness a lot of the above described situations in the MAs).
EDIT: Premature "post" clickage... continuing:
If the answer is "no" then we don't need to debate GVs in scenarios, as apparently not even the GV folks want it. Going by the numbers participating, it's not many. I'm curious who keeps advocating the inclusion of GVs. Is it the GVers, or is it the flyboys? (that's an honest question btw, might explain a few things, or raise more questions, depending on the answer)
-
If...
- The Gv objectives of both sides are structured to provide conflicting objectives then they will meet
- The Gv objectives of both side give choice then both sneak attacks and conflicts occur (Strike and counter strike)
- The multiple gv lives are limited to premium rides but unlimited in gv support lives then a few players can take on the roles of many
- The few AC lives are supplemented by unlimited gv support lives then a few more players can take on the roles of many and sustain input into the frame beyond their primary role
Then IMO this level of freedom is condusive to enhancing the overall scenario experience via the integration of a ground war element.
It all then comes down to numbers and opportunities
I dont mean shows/no shows. The LW had abour 1000-1500 fighter air craft on the EF during most of the conflict. We will represent this (in scenario) in a local conflict with a battle ratio of about 1:2. And given two lives many EF scenarios can be modelled nearly 1:1 re the actual air battles.
Yet in the ground war we have a scenario:RL ratio of nearer 1:20. yet the objective is to interface the two!!!
Krupp/Sturm resolved this by restricting the number of AC who could attack GV's. My view would be to first maximise GV's (see above)then consider if this is still required.
I would return to my previous arguement re AI mission driven stuff as being the "next step"
there are some points made earlier in this debate I agree with.
- Get rid of (or restrict further) Gv icon visibility from the air (particularly when GV's are "under cover")
- Make GV fields more of a challange
- Be aware of designs that induce stalemates on the ground............ attack and counter attack (capture/ re capture) is more fun than stand off slug fest with no outcome
-
You guys should listen to Tilt, and incorporate where you can. He's an old hand at this and has forgotten more then most of you will ever learn.
-
You guys should listen to Tilt, and incorporate where you can. He's an old hand at this and has forgotten more then most of you will ever learn.
Yes because anyone who is not a CM is incapable of understanding....that is a pretty asinine comment in my book.
:rolleyes:
-
there are some points made earlier in this debate I agree with.
- Get rid of (or restrict further) Gv icon visibility from the air (particularly when GV's are "under cover")
- Make GV fields more of a challange
- Be aware of designs that induce stalemates on the ground............ attack and counter attack (capture/ re capture) is more fun than stand off slug fest with no outcome
1. This would require code changes within the game itself.
Strip
-
1. This would require code changes within the game itself.
Strip
Unfortunately so. I would love to fly and run events with icons off. Currently the icons can be only turned off on the client side, which is ok with a small trusted group, but could not possibly be used in a scenario with hundreds of players.
IMHO the whole icon system could be reworked, but that is an another story :)
-
Yes because anyone who is not a CM is incapable of understanding....that is a pretty asinine comment in my book.
:rolleyes:
Clearly, I need to point out what I actually said, "You guys should listen to Tilt, and incorporate where you can."
Sorry, I didn't feel the underline and bold face type were required for understanding before, I guess I was wrong, or maybe you just chose not to understand.
-
1. This would require code changes within the game itself.
Strip
Well the ground AI missions and the icons would require input from HTC. Icons certainly not high level COAD though. Its becomes another "todo" amidst all the other priorities.
and I am not the font of all knowledge............ one of the problems with experience is that sometimes it dulls innovation. Sometimes the most experienced of us can be the least flexible to new ideas or even the re interpretation of old ones.
I saw a photo of Brooke at the 1992? AW con the other day so there is a wealth of experience here beside me
GV fields can be made harder by playing with the settings a little. Anti stalemate stuff is a matter of gameplay design and rule set.
Also look closely to the terrain. The CM team has a whole group of highly motivated folk making and (sometimes) modifying terrains. HTC does not encourage non standard fields anymore but moving/adding the odd spawn point or hill is very possible.
If you work with the CM admining your design then you need only ask. The asnwer maybe NO and there may be another work around. But if you/we don't ask, for sure you/we will not get.
-
True Tilt, and I wish you'd qualify the wish list items separately from your descriptions, but again, you were designing good GV setups when some of these guys were trying to chose between a Star Wars or Batman lunch pail. :D
-
I'm going to share my thoughts in response to some posts in this and the other threads:
in no order:
1) You should no more likely remove GV icons than you should remove airplane icons.
What next? Remove GV dots? Why, you know, if HTC removed my icon, my plane, hell my very DOT from the game, I bet I could get a lotta kills too!! And I bet if nobody could kill me I'd have the mostest points in the world!
:rolleyes:
2) I don't think "sneak attacks" are very realistic IMO. It's gaming the game. It's milkrunning an objective. I suppose the Germans just opened up their front lines during the battle of the bulge and let the allies "sneak" past several hundred miles to sack towns behind them? It's one of those gameplay conventions in the MA that GV drivers want because it's easy, gives them lots of points, etc. God forbid they should fight their way through the front lines to get to the objective?
3) I also don't think limiting aircraft numbers while boosting GVs is a valid suggestion. That's stupid. I don't care who ya are. This is a FLIGHT sim, and GVs have been tacked onto it. It's quite obvious the GVs are an afterthought, when you compare the bugs, the damage systems, the very GV modeling itself, vs the way things really worked on a battlefield. Don't get me wrong, I can see a place for GVs in scenarios, but a "majority GV scenario" will never work. Ever. Period. End of paragraph. New line. This is, and always WILL be a flight game, first and foremost.
That said, we should not coddle the GVs any more than we should coddle the pilots. Every scenario has its own rules, but if Red Storm was played with only 2 GV lives, same as the pilots got planes, what's wrong with that? You die 2x in 5 minutes you're out, same as the pilots!
We've all had bad scenario frames (look at Strip in RS!) where we get wiped out before even heading to target. Do we get extra lives to make up for that? No. It does happen, though. So why coddle reckless GVers? Make them play it smart like we have to. There's no reward if there's no risk. They get unlimited lives and the entire situation devolves into MA furballishness, but you reduce the lives and perhaps it evolves to a higher level. Perhaps it becomes something that takes a bit of skill and concentration (and, just maybe, luck!).
Tying directly back into point #1, how much to we cater to them, to the point they are rolling around in virtual god-mode with no opposition, and we must stay perfectly still while they spawn camp us? I very much understand it's all a balance, but there's far too much politics in it right now.
Ya know what, do what you can, but don't bend over backwards for them. If they don't have the stomach for scenario play they won't participate. Softening rules/regs just to get random MA GV players in "to fill slots" is about as wise as staffing an entire team with newbie walkon pilots from the MA that have never participated in scenarios before. Those that signed up definitely don't want to have them ruining their time and effort.
"Drumming up" GV interest only goes so far. It's like any recruiting effort. You try too hard, and you start collecting folks you don't want, that don't share your interests or goals. At that point you realize "Okay, only 10 [or 20, or fill in the blank] seem to have the interest" and you just limit the GV role. That doesn't mean isolating them, removing them from all interaction. Just means figure something out where less GVs can still help win the battle.
-
We've all had bad scenario frames (look at Strip in RS!) where we get wiped out before even heading to target. Do we get extra lives to make up for that? No. It does happen, though. So why coddle reckless GVers? Make them play it smart like we have to. There's no reward if there's no risk. They get unlimited lives and the entire situation devolves into MA furballishness, but you reduce the lives and perhaps it evolves to a higher level. Perhaps it becomes something that takes a bit of skill and concentration (and, just maybe, luck!).
Tying directly back into point #1, how much to we cater to them, to the point they are rolling around in virtual god-mode with no opposition, and we must stay perfectly still while they spawn camp us? I very much understand it's all a balance, but there's far too much politics in it right now.
Ya know what, do what you can, but don't bend over backwards for them. If they don't have the stomach for scenario play they won't participate. Softening rules/regs just to get random MA GV players in "to fill slots" is about as wise as staffing an entire team with newbie walkon pilots from the MA that have never participated in scenarios before. Those that signed up definitely don't want to have them ruining their time and effort.
"Drumming up" GV interest only goes so far. It's like any recruiting effort. You try too hard, and you start collecting folks you don't want, that don't share your interests or goals. At that point you realize "Okay, only 10 [or 20, or fill in the blank] seem to have the interest" and you just limit the GV role. That doesn't mean isolating them, removing them from all interaction. Just means figure something out where less GVs can still help win the battle.
I agree with you Krusty....
There were a couple of times where we were wiped out entirely only minutes into the first sortie. That is seven guys that lost a life in less than ten to fifteen minutes into the frame. With only two lifes my main concern after that was effectively utilizing our last life. Not only from a victory stand point but making sure the people flying under me had a enjoyable frame. Did I make a risky plan with big payoffs, heck yes, with a big reward if successful. Did I curse myself for putting our aircraft in that position without escort, heck yes! After we waited our five minutes we took back off, with escort and slightly bruised egos.
Whats the moral of this story?
Without escort the B-25's were sitting ducks, even with 14,000 feet of altitude. Every plane in the Axis arsenal would likely try to kill us on sight, often succeeding. Our only viable defense was a descent sized escort and remaining undetected. Each time we were found without escort we died en mass, regardless of plane.
Now if you compare B-25s and ground vehicles, in many ways they are a like. Killing them becomes quite easy with the right tools at your disposal. Just about any fighter can dispatch a bomber rather easily (unescorted). Similarly any plane with a bomb can take out a tank rather easily if bombing under friendly skies. In clear terms they are sitting ducks should the enemy bring the proper tools. Now in the interests of gameplay the ground vehicles are protected from 90% of the enemy forces. While the bombers remain vulnerable to any fighter that happens across us.
So WHY I ask, do ground vehicles complain about having to dodge 10% of the aircraft in the game. Especially considering I have to avoid nearly every plane in the game or risk a quick death. On top of that we get two less lives, no free lives in support roles, and nearly two hour flights at times.
The more I hear this the more I feel the gv's want a sterile environment to fight in, with no outside influence.
I can hear it now," Hey look, there is a enemy plane." "Dont worry about him, he cant touch us."
Four words people," FLAK VEHICLES" and "AIR COVER".....
Learn them, utilize them, value them....
Soon the only explosions you will be hearing are the enemies tanks and aircraft meeting a quick end.
Strip
-
I saw a photo of Brooke at the 1992? AW con the other day
Heh! I looked at that picture and thought, "Man, I look so young compared to now." :)
-
Well the battle of the bulge was a sneak attack it did penetrate the allies lines at the weakest point. Do think that the allies were waiting for the Germans to drive thru their lines to Bastogne!
Also read up on the defence of Moscow and Zukhovs counter strikes at Whermacht weakest points in 41. Did the Whermacht know where he was going to strike!
Manstiens moving Pocket of late 43early 44, did the Red Army know where he was deploying his point defence next?
Even great Battles like Kursk when the Red Army was waiting for the Whermacht thrust they did not know where. All they knew was to hold until the combat zone could be re enforced whilst the whermacht (as in the Bulge) new they had to penetrate before the enemy could re enforce. (which btw is exactly what they did in the Battle of France in 1940!)
These are all examples that open with "milk running" which either penetrate a front line or are held and incur a counter strike.
This is the science of blitzkrieg, the rapid deployment of ground armour supported by air borne ground attack weaponry to penetrate enemy lines at the weakest point and rapidly encircle and cut off large parts of the enemy army from logistic support. This is what a ground war could be designed to emulate...... not a tank v tank slug fest more in the mold of WW1 trench war fare thru spawn camping and massed defence of a known target objectives.
I know we can model this in game. Because we have done it before..............
Re GV icons. Ideally I would only want them to be less obivous when a tank is under cover........... but given the choice between limited ac able to attack with full gv icon......... and unlimited gv able to attack with no gv icon....... I take the latter every time! That is "figuring something out" that will let them influence in a more practical way.............
-
Let me start by saying that I haven't read this thread in it's entirety but I've been kicking around the following idea for a few days now off and on and I wanted to toss it out there for the discussion.
I think the issue is resolving around the scope of a tactical vs a strategic battle. I can appreciate feeling helpless will sitting in a tank with bombs constantly raining down all around you, but I think what was attempted in the last scenario wasn't a perfect solution either, and left room for abuse (either intentional or accidental). I think the answer to how to protect the GV's while not handcuffing the attack aircraft is to provide top cover for the guys in the armor. I don't think it's much different than bombers, sure the bombers can shoot back but an unescorted flight of bombers is in deep trouble. I flew B-25's and whenever we were discovered we got pounded on. The problem then becomes a matter of resource allocation, given the average number of participants and objectives during a scenario frame there just aren't enough people to go around. This probably means that some people either have milk runs, spend an hour flying in circles with nothing do or get hit by a much larger force and slaughtered. In order to build a complete vertical battle field with the number of people available, we could consider running a couple frames with limited tactical objectives and a few with more far reaching strategic objectives. Redress the planeset numbers for each, it would allow more people to play some of the more popular/impacted rides and if they have to fly/drive something that's not their first choice then it's not for all four frames.
I hope this is clear, writing it during breaks in the action while at work. :)
-
This entire thread just fascinates me to no end. As the guy who inadvertently triggered this entire ruckus I've tried to read all the relevant postings and absorb the various viewpoints. My thoughts are as follows...
1) Obviously the seeds for this conflict predate this scenario and are a bit beyond my comprehension
From my perspective scenario's are a group effort and no single piece of the puzzle exists in a vacuum, this is entirely separate from any GV specific component. The friction between bombers, fighters, CAP vs Sweep vs escort all mimic these same arguments. In any scenario units will be interdependent, the entire concept that one unit (or unit type) can be insulated from interference is absurd. The entire purpose is "immersion" and a measure of historical accuracy, relating this to Tank on tank combat the reality is that planes killed more tanks then tanks did...end of story. This would be like me arguing that I'm entitled to a 1 on 1 fight in my A-20 :joystick: :airplane: :x :rock....just not gonna happen in a scenario.
2) With no disrespect intended it appears serious command issues existed in the Axis camp and this is reflected in the 1st frame results IMO. I get the sense that the early setbacks caused some serious issues instead of being realistically planned for...
It was apparent to all that we would get air assets there 1st, but the VH's were knocked down by ground forces before the 1st plane even arrived. Allied GVers had an outstanding plan and carried the day based on that plan and execution.
3) The actual damage from Air to Ground attacks was pretty minimal and the psychological damage was extreme.
Moreys comments sum it up nicely. He and the rest of them (that bailed) were a beaten bunch before the 1st shot was ever fired. I fly right over him and he driving in circles with not a bomb crater near him. He was never damaged by an "illegal" attack (and no A-20 did any damage outside of the rules in any frame) but was obviously effected...
To me this is pretty simple, none of us function in isolation in a scenario. We are all interdependent and we all want to contribute in a positive fashion. In my experience a number of scenarios have had restrictions, normally technical in nature due to substitution issues (bomb load, weapon load out, manifold settings etc). Based on earlier scenarios a further restriction was imposed. From the axis threads my assumption is this was due to aircraft inflicted kills on GV's. My 1st thought is obviously...well if you don't kill or drive of the attackers the GV's will die (how is this different then bombers?), but I have no problem with the rules of engagement. However, what we have here appears to go beyond any logical interpretation of the actual rule itself. It looks to totally isolate the GV action from the overall battlefield. Not only is this unrealistic it's unfair to the rest of the participants who have every right to impact the course of action within the rules.
I'm all for GV's in future scenario's and I have no issues with reasonable restrictions to maximize enjoyment and game play. Pandering to the entirely unrealistic view of a handful of players is a bad idea however and about as realistic as a fighter pilot complaining about getting "ganged". Strips buffs got massacred in frame 2 because the escorts mistimed the hookup, we (221BAD) got massacred when F8's bounced us in frame 2, We lost most of a Yak squad when they got vulched on the rearm pad...this was all in the same frame....every unit gets smacked down during the course of a scenario, its the nature of the beast. So one group suffers a beat down and blames it (incorrectly it turns out) on "illegal" actions collectively takes it's ball and goes home?
My response would be simple, to the point and in keeping with FSO, warn em or ban em from the next scenario...don't coddle em and change the rules further to appease them. The moment that this issue came up I immediately put my film up. The reasoning was simple and straight forward.
1) Factual 1st hand evidence for the CM's to review for any infraction
2) Factual 1st hand context of intent and circumstance for the player base
The bottom line is simple, no A-20 damaged a single GV outside of dropping on legitimate targets at any time in any of the 4 frames. As for this specific event the film makes it clear that my intent was to mark the tanks location not damage it in any way. Given the lack of suitable legal targets and inbound german fighters the use of my external eggs for this purpose made sense at the time to me and was the only useful thing to do with them. The bottom line is that the tank was not known to jolly (up on the hill) until i pointed him out. In the context of overall game play isn't that my "job" here, to make a positive impact for my side? This all happened in the space of 10-12 seconds and is a random (unplanned) event that should have no broader implications beyond a single small ripple in a big pond. The fact that it did simply highlights broad misconceptions that need (IMO) to be squashed. Tank warfare in WW2 was bloody high attrition work for all but some of the Tiger (and other elite) units. The thought that GV's should somehow be insulated from the historical realities is just wrong. To win the war on the ground you need to at least fight to a standstill in the air. GV's without suitable air cover are no better then Buffs without escort...end of story. The issue here is planning and objectives not rules per se...
-
Moreys comments sum it up nicely. He and the rest of them (that bailed) were a beaten bunch before the 1st shot was ever fired. I fly right over him and he driving in circles with not a bomb crater near him. He was never damaged by an "illegal" attack (and no A-20 did any damage outside of the rules in any frame) but was obviously effected...
Humble huh? Chose your name well. :rolleyes:
Listen, the bottom line is this. This is a game. People expect to have fun in a game....and in this case, actually fight. My frame in a Tiger was spent dodging attacks which I could not counter. It was not fun, it was not mildly entertaining even. I didn't even see a tank on my first life.
You seem to think it revolves around your actions as well....which is laughable.
It was a waste of time. If it was due to all of us being so weak...there wouldn't be a thread 10 pages long discussing it in two different scenarios. GV'rs are sick of indiscriminate aerial attack, and that's why you don't see many "long time" GV people in scenarios.... they walk away.
Again, having a bright red icon, on a tank 1.5 K away is idiotic. Let's make it fair by making a hit bubble on your diving aircraft that extends 5 wing lengths around every axis of your plane..... that's what it's close to. Air has every advantage against GV's.... a luxury that isn't historically accurate at all.
I "bailed" so beaten, as to rack up the single highest kills against GV's from the air of anyone in the whole scenario, from both sides, in only 3 frames. Spin whatever you wish, but at least tell the truth.
Apologies for the resurrection, but I just saw how humble wants to play this like those that left were cowardly.
-
Just let it die.
-
Fencer,
The most enjoyable time in GV battles that I can recall, was the TT (Doughnut map). It had numerous spawn points from each country into a city / town. There were numerous hiding places and limited bomber access.
Where that became "gamey": When vehicle hangars were destroyed, allowed for spawns to be camped unopposed.
Wishlist: Bring back Doughnut Map
-
Or in the next scenario with GV objectives, task no squadrons in the air to ground role. However, Side A has to take the town whilst side B has to defend the town, whilst all the air squadrons are carrying out their objectives.
Or you could task some squadrons with an air recce/recon role to spot GVs for friendly GV forces with the enemy airforce tasked to eliminate the recce/recon squadrons
-
Just something for the CMs to look into at, is if you turn the lowiconrange off below 500 or 100 feet. Will Gv icons turn off?
-
Just something for the CMs to look into at, is if you turn the lowiconrange off below 500 or 100 feet. Will Gv icons turn off?
As I recall, folks tried that, and found that it does not turn off GV icons.
-
One more opinion chime in...we have a new scenario going and there is no ground war in it...but I had to read this thread and see what has been said.
I'm not a GV'r but I do hop into a tank once in a while when I'm tired of getting shot down by Spit16 dweebs that miraculously out turn anything...and it can be a lot of fun dodging Hurricanes and IL2s...maybe ping them with some 7.92mm bb's.
If tanks were to be incorporated, the setup would have to be geared more towards the ground war than the air war...Ardennes for example would be a great tank setup...and if the cloud cover can be made to limit visibility from 1000 feet to tree top level, ground forces would not be quite so vulnerable to air attack...coupled with shortend enemy icon range.
The player limit would need to be increased to allow for more ground vehicle participants and not force flyers into making a choice or be randomly assigned to GVs...I don't know what the physical limit of players on the server is but if FSO can handle 400+ players, a scenario should be able to handle 300-350...currently it's something like 270 or so?
The distribution of GV types would have to be such that tanks and mobile AA would move together...perhaps something like 1 AA unit to 3 tanks keeping the AA units around 500 yds behind the tanks to cover air targets...that would increase the value of the AA units for both the ground and air forces...but that's part of command strategy.
Give the GV'ers limited lives like the flyers...maybe 1 or 2 more.
Make the GV targets something more like a city or neutral large base...something that can be fought over where they are not reliant on vehicle hangars, or make the vehicle hangars less of a dependency for spawning.
Put the spawn points far enough away from each other that they could not be camped by opposing ground forces.
There is more to it but those are the basics as I see them...and I would like to see more scenarios where people who actually like to use ground vehicles can participate...it's a community event and participation should not always be limited to the air battles of WWII.