Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Sloehand on November 25, 2009, 12:01:06 PM
-
This post concerns GV’s in scenarios. The last two scenarios to include GV’s have displayed many difficulties that have resulted in quite a number of dedicated GV players quiting in anger and frustration during the scenario, and others indicating their refusal to participate in future scenarios as tankers.
While there were some improvements in the GV setup in this last scenario “Red Storm/Krupp Steel” over “Tunisia: Dawn Of Battle”, there were still significant factors to the gameplay and rules that led to extreme dissatisfaction for many players.
Given that Tunisia was planned for around 30 GV’ers per side and Red Storm only 20, and the fact that the Axis side only once started a frame with even three quarters of their assigned GV’ers, and usually played with half or less, and that the Allies only once got even close to their full numbers, all indicates that the GV element of scenerios is not working, and may even be dead at this point.
As one of those GV enthusiasts in the game, and having gone through these scenarios as well as several FSO’s with GV’s included, and having been involved in sponsoring TanK KluB a year or so back, I have been paying close attention to this problem. And I am not quite ready to give up on GV’s in scenarios just yet when I think there are still solutions and improvements as yet untried. I believe some further adjustments might make GV’s both viable and enjoyable in a scenario without the aggravation and frustration that has gone on for one or both sides.
To that end, I have been working slowly, over time, on a couple of GV-centric scenarios that I think address most of the problematic issues and offer some additional dimension or gameplay options for tankers. However, with so many GV’ers refusing to participate in the future, I’m wondering if it is even worthwhile to complete the work to put these scenarios on.
Therefore, this open letter to GV’ers, and anyone else interested, is to ask if any AH GV’ers would be willing to consider a new scenario, sometime in the future, that was designed by a tanker, primarily for tankers, with aircraft being only a very small component, if they are included at all -- with rules structured to eliminate the MA-like gameplay that has ruined GV action so far, and provide more varied and robust gameplay with many more tactical options for the tankers?
As these scenarios I’m planning, instead of being 80-90% air and 10% GV’s, would be GV-centric meaning probably 80-90% GV’s, it would require a minimum of 60+ tankers per side, and hopefully more, to put one on. Therefore I’ve got to know if there is enough interest in this in the community.
I simply need a short response here, from both dedicated tankers and pilots who might like to get into a tank, who would be willing to at least take a look at such a tanker’s scenario some time in the future, to gauge whether enough might be willing to participate to make it worthwhile to continue.
-
What happened to tank club?
Edit: care to elaborate on why the GV'ers were so dissatisfied with the Red Storm scenari
-
No matter what anyone does it will still be not enough.
-
Double post
-
I would be willing to take part. Tanking is something I enjoy in AH... but as you stated, the MA is not a realistic GV environment. Spawn and hangar camping dont lead to good tank battles, and the few of us that do like to drive tanks, dont see much GV on GV action in the MA.
But... with that said, I think part of the problem is the limited types of tanks and support vehicles that are currently available in game. In order to increase tank interest, I think HTC needs to devote some time in getting more tanks, tank destroyers, mobile artillery, troop carriers, and the like into the game.
HTC has said time and again, that this is not JUST an air combat sim, but rather a WW2 combat sim. But in order for that to be the case, more ground vehicles need to be available. And the basis of them being brought into the game shouldn't just be on how they will perform in the MA's.
-
3 or 4 well flown IL2's will kill any gv attack, since this always seems to take place when there is no fighter cover a gv battle is doomed unless this situation is dealt with. I suggest we take a page from history. ( battle of the bulge). Sock in the battle area with bad weather. I have enjoyed gv battles at ports when the cloud cover made attack planes useless. There are more reasons for people being upset at some of the gv battles, this is just a comment regarding 1 issue.
-
I would be willing to take part. Tanking is something I enjoy in AH... but as you stated, the MA is not a realistic GV environment. Spawn and hangar camping dont lead to good tank battles, and the few of us that do like to drive tanks, dont see much GV on GV action in the MA.
But... with that said, I think part of the problem is the limited types of tanks and support vehicles that are currently available in game. In order to increase tank interest, I think HTC needs to devote some time in getting more tanks, tank destroyers, mobile artillery, troop carriers, and the like into the game.
HTC has said time and again, that this is not JUST an air combat sim, but rather a WW2 combat sim. But in order for that to be the case, more ground vehicles need to be available. And the basis of them being brought into the game shouldn't just be on how they will perform in the MA's.
Then you need to go look at WWII online they "have" all that and the frame rates suck when you get that many people in various equipment, Planes, Tanks, Ground Troops(First person shooter) AA Guns, you name it and that game has it all, BUT you need darn near a super computer to run the game.
I run this system...
AMD Phenom 4x 2.9 gig per core
Corsair ddr2 800mgz 8 total gigs
Asus M4N72-E dual PCI Express
2 XFX GTX 260X 869MB DDR3 SLI Video Cards
Seagate 1 Terabit 10,000rpm 32mbps Harddrive
Antec Hardcore Gaming Case 1,000 watt PS
Saitek X52
Samsung Syncmaster 2333 23 inch Digital HD Monitor
and it smokes AcesHigh and any other game out there, BUT WWII online at times makes this seem like its a 10 year old rig because of all the "eye Candy" you have to remember with more graphics reduces your systems performance, and not alot of people cant afford a super computer and game developers know this
AcesHigh i run 210 to 245 FPS, WWII online 40 FPS on a good night down to a slide show, its not my system lol
-
I tried to get into last weeks scenario but it was at 3:00pm and i got home from work at 3:10pm and was locked out. As for any improvements you have in mind, all we can do is try them and see how they work. I'm game.
-
Then you need to go look at WWII online they "have" all that and the frame rates suck when you get that many people in various equipment, Planes, Tanks, Ground Troops(First person shooter) AA Guns, you name it and that game has it all, BUT you need darn near a super computer to run the game.
No thanks, I dont "need" to go look at WWII Online... and the frame rates suck there for more reasons than just the number of players. I dont think anyone here is looking to turn AH into what WWII Online is. Just looking to further develop the ground element of this game... which if it were, could be much more diverse and enjoyable for everyone.
-
I guess a lot of that would have to do with if you are preparing actual historical scenarios or not.
I've been taking a lot of time off from the game lately and have gotten engrossed with a war strategy game called West Front by a now defunct company, TalonSoft. There are somewhere over 100 scenarios to play, from infantry to tank battles to the landings on Omaha Beach and the scenarios cover Europe, the Mediterranian and Africa.
One of the more fun scenarios is called Debut the Honey. Here's a little history from Wikipedia:
The British Army was the first to use the Light Tank M3 as the "General Stuart" in combat. In November 1941, some 170 Stuarts took part in Operation Crusader, with poor results. Although the high losses suffered by Stuart-equipped units during the operation had more to do with better tactics and training of the Afrika Korps than the apparent superiority of German armor in the North African campaign, the operation revealed that the M3 had several technical faults. Mentioned in the British complaints were the 37 mm M5 gun and poor internal layout. The two-man turret crew was a significant weakness, and some British units tried to fight with three-man turret crews. The Stuart also had a limited range, which was a severe problem in desert warfare as units often outpaced their supplies and were stranded when they ran out of fuel. On the positive side, crews liked its high speed and mechanical reliability. The high speed and high reliability distinguished the Stuart from cruiser tanks of the period, in particular the Crusader, which composed a large portion of the British tank force in Africa up until 1942.
The name General Stuart or Stuart given by the British comes from the American Civil War General J.E.B. Stuart and was used for both the M3 and M5 Light Tank; in British service it also had the unofficial nickname of Honey(named when a tank driver remarked "She's a honey").
While the Honey was outclassed by it's German counterparts, with proper tactical use, at least in the game, it's able to do much better than history reflects.
I'd love to play this type of scenario but:
1. AH doesn't have the right GV's
2. AH doesn't have the right terrain
3. I don't know how you could possibly get the players to even closely approximate the actual battle.
-
I would enjoy a GV-centric scenario and would join if it weren't unbalanced.
I agree with others that AH is a bit limited on the GV front; too few types of vehicles and terrain that does not provide much cover. However, at least a scenario would be a vastly better experience than trying to tank in the MA (where the ratio of air assets to ground assets is about the inverse of real life).
-
Stalin's Fourth Scenario was filled with T34's vs Panzers, and with even fewer planes. That scenario was a blast!
Here is a film created by Yucca on Stalin's Fourth scenario:
Download (http://www.lgmcomputers.com/AH/Films/Yucca/STALIN.zip)
Sloehand, I would absolutely join a GV centric scenario!
-
Yucca
HIJACK!!!
where is YUCCA?
you seen or talked to him?
-
Would deffinitly be interested. I'm not close to the best tanker around but, I enjoy doing it.
:salute
BigRat
-
Stalin's Fourth had a successful GV element. You were not designated a GV driver for the full frame. I recall flying 190s mostly and GVs for about 30 minutes and I had fun.
-
Easy. Almost every armored battle in WW2 developed from weather grounding the opposition's air power.
-
If a scenario was presented that needed tankers, and there were no bombers, I would give it a try.
-
OK, a little more info. As for the vehicles, we have what we have. I hope some new tanks will come out, but it's not something I can influence or count on.
My interest, as many in the scenarios have learned, is tactics, both air and ground combined, but especially ground. Further, I'd like to see a scenario setup that encourages more realistic small unit armored tactics, and tactical situations that present a variety of tactical solutions for both the attacker and defender, and more and different 'victory' objectives rather than just 'taking bases'.
All of this requires a little more creativity in structuring the rules to encourage all this, and I don't have all the solutions worked out perfectly, but I do have many ideas and plans to try out. Most importantly, I more or less know what GV'ers like and don't like in what they've been given so far, and there are still more things to try.
As for the historical aspect, I thoroughly enjoy learning about the battles each scenario is patterned after. However, until we have a good air-to-ground formula well understood, I'm less concerned with fashioning a histically accurate scenario than I am just a good GV action scenario.
This means the first couple of GV scenarios most probably will not have any correlation to any specific WWII battle, but that doesn't mean they won't further down the road.
Obviously, we have limitations in our terrain/movement setup and available vehicles, but a fun and intense GV scenario IMO is still very possible.
-
I'll be there most likely.
-
In Stalin's Forth, there was much GV action. There were no dedicated spots for tankers -- GV positions were filled by assigning people from general registration to GV duty. Many people (like me) greatly enjoyed Stalin's Fourth. But there were many pilots who weren't as keen on it because they didn't prefer GV duty and felt that they got (in their words) "stuck" in GV's.
In Tunisia and Red Storm, the scenario team experimented with having dedicated GV spots specifically set aside for tankers -- to give them their own dedicated, important role -- and then see what GV'ers made of it. Compared to the Main Arena and compared to past scenarios, both of these scenarios drastically cut back on what could be done from the air to GV's. In both scenarios, death from air attack did not subtract at all from lives available to GV'ers, and GV'ers were given more lives than pilots to start with. In Tunisia, in addition, various bombers were precluded from divebombing. That did not seem to be enough restriction. So, in Red Storm, we went close to a lower limit of interaction and precluded killing tanks by any aircraft except for one squadron on each side.
While both scenarios had many tankers who enjoyed the scenario, each one also had tankers who didn't at all like it. Scenarios are like movies or types of food -- people have different preferences, and not everyone is going to like any given thing, no matter what it is. The best you can do is when the large majority of people have a good time. Now most players prefer aircraft. So, having a scenario where 5-10 pilots don't like it out of 150-250 is still doing well. But having a scenario where 5-10 GV'ers don't like it out of 20-30 is not where you want to be.
Going to approximately a lower limit on interaction between air and ground forces is not far enough for a portion of dedicated GV'ers. Clearly, our experiments have indicated the solution: either forget about having dedicated GV spots for GV'ers (like Stalin's Fourth) or totally eliminate interaction between air and ground forces.
So, that's what we'll likely do. For scenarios that have a GV component, we'll either (a) have air-to-ground interaction, no dedicated GV spots, and players will get 2 lives in planes and 1 life in GV's (or some such) or (b) have dedicated GV spots but no interaction at all between air and ground forces. (b) will generate it's share of complaints from some scenario players who will see it as too unrealistic, gamey, restricted, or scripted -- so (a) might be a better way to go, but we can all think about it.
I suppose an outside candidate (c) is to continue to do what we did in Red Storm and just work to grow the base of GV players who are fine with that (as they do exist). If there are GV folks who feel that this (c) is better, feel free to say so.
-
So, in Red Storm, we went close to a lower limit of interaction and precluded killing tanks by any aircraft except for one squadron on each side.
Wrong. From the rules:
Do not attack tanks or troop carriers (M3, SdKfz) unless you are specifically ordered to do so. Only particular planes are allowed to attack those vehicles.
From the Dictionary:
Main Entry: 1at·tack
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈtak\
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle French attaquer, from Old Italian *estaccare to attach, from stacca stake, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English staca
Date: 1562
transitive verb 1 : to set upon or work against forcefully
2 : to assail with unfriendly or bitter words
3 : to begin to affect or to act on injuriously <plants attacked by aphids>
4 : to set to work on <attack a problem>
5 : to threaten (a piece in chess) with immediate capture
At no point does the definition of "attack" include "success" or "kill". Revisionist history in the making...like saying some people "quit" when they were fired. :aok
Marking with bombs.... strafing... all fit under the definition of "attack".
I want to fix this problem too, but if you want to continually shift the reasoning, it won't get fixed. In the future, add weather. Eliminate the icon range for GV's. Hell, make it more than 4 and a half minutes for one sides ground attackers to get to the field they're attacking. That's a start.
You can have a mixed battlefield without making it uneven.
-
bla
No, hes correct. Since one squad flies the same aircraft, his statement is in accordance to the rules you specified, even thought your interpretation might differ. Quoting the dictionary is just picking hairs. Personally I despise that tactic of voiding ones argument; this is not an english grammar class.
Sounds to me like sloehand wants another GV club in which he creates a sandbox from his own pocket of ideas and look at people playing them out. Whatever happened to the GV club which existed for exactly this purpose? And why were people so unhappy with Red Storm Krupp Steal? I thought it was a great scenario.
-
double post, argh I have to stop doing that.
-
I only played one frame of Red Storm and had to leave suddenly due to R/L issues. But from what I did see, I hated every part of the GV battle.
And I love rolling around in tanks.
The Spawns were too close and virtually every advantage was given to the attacker. There was little if any time to scout the terrain, establish defenses, and the fields of fire quite simply were absolute crap.
Taking bases was a matter of the ingame mechanic and easily exploitable by having M3's run up with troops and forcing the Germans to move out of cover/concealement to destroy them in order not to lose the base. Making themselves easy targets. M3's didn't count as lives so if you have 5 dedicated M3 drivers staggering their runs you get a near constant stream of troops. Once you capture the base you leave 4 or 5 guys to clean up the Germans around the base, drive the rest of your force on, and immediately land and spawn towards the next base.
Very gamey and not at all fun.
By the time we could get out of the hangar for our second line of defense the attackers were already hitting the town and we were a good 5-6 kilometers away from it.
This was not, in my opinion, a very well thought out set up.
Centering the objectives on bases and being capturable by the ingame mechanic just does not sound good to me. Making infinite troop carriers or finite troop carriers is not a solution either, as the entire game centers around intercepting the troop carriers and it becomes an escort mission instead of an actual attack mission.
There are so many consideration that go into a mechanized engagement that what has been presented so far imo isn't hitting the spot at all.
The objective need to be a piece of terrain that the defender can spawn in on and that the attack is required to advance towards. I'm thinking maybe a 30 or 40 minute drive for the attacker would be sufficient.
As this would allow the defense and the offense time to organise on the ground. You can only plan so much in the tower before needing to have boots on the ground to see where you really need to be for maximum effectiveness. This would also put a much bigger emphases on the reconnaissance game and actually make having light and fast vehicles worthwhile. And would allow the offense to come up with something more strategically satisfying than swarm here and stagger troop deployments there. Having a feint force and then a main attack, etc. etc. etc.
Or having the defense actually being able to leave a platoon or two on the objective and then have a more mobile defense with scouts out to try and find the incoming attacker and create a meeting engagement. Spawns should be random between 3 or four bases. And having a predictable terrain feature as the objective would allow for SDK's to create a limited but possible effective artillery screen.
There are alot of ways to make the GV element in scenarios much more interesting and in-depth. I don't think even half of them have been implemented.
It just seems way too arcadish for me right now with the way it's set up. There's no time to adjust, to study the fight, or to make critical decisions.
-
No, hes correct. Since one squad flies the same aircraft, his statement is in accordance to the rules you specified, even thought your interpretation might differ. Quoting the dictionary is just picking hairs. Personally I despise that tactic of voiding ones argument; this is not an english grammar class.
No, respectfully, he is not. We were "attacked" by every type of aircraft the Soviets flew in this scenario.
You missed the point. Despise all you wish, it is fact.
-
No, respectfully, he is not. We were "attacked" by every type of aircraft the Soviets flew in this scenario.
You missed the point. Despise all you wish, it is fact.
I don't think your position is based on facts. Could you provide facts to support your argument? The logs are available so you should have no trouble.
-
I don't think your position is based on facts. Could you provide facts to support your argument? The logs are available so you should have no trouble.
16:19:22 Departed from Field #20 in a Yak-9U
16:46:48 Helps greenman shoot down kansas2.
16:49:41 Helps greenman shoot down OOZ662.
16:51:14 Helps BLBird shoot down prs3rd2.
16:56:43 Helps flight17 shoot down Coprhead.
16:58:49 Arrived Safely at Field #20
All four assists are on GV's. Ooz was right next to me when this particular event occurred. There are others, but I must now be with my family and forget this nonsense.
Interesting, as well, that in looking in the logs, BOTH IL2 groups have GV kills in the same frame.
IL2 pilots in one group...
16:11:45 Takes on fuel/ammo/ord at field #34.
16:20:34 Shot down a SdKfz 251 flown by Mjsmoke.
16:21:20 Shot down a SdKfz 251 flown by Chump.
IL2 pilot in group 2...
14:21:34 Departed from Field #42 in a Il-2 Type 3
14:36:30 Shot down a SdKfz 251 flown by prs3rd2.
Which group was allowed to attack GV's again?
-
double post.
-
I suppose an outside candidate (c) is to continue to do what we did in Red Storm and just work to grow the base of GV players who are fine with that (as they do exist). If there are GV folks who feel that this (c) is better, feel free to say so.
I wouldnt call myself a GV folk (even though I GVed in Red Storm), but I believe (c) to be the best option...simply because I really do not like the idea of the other two.
A Stalin's Fourth type of deal with no designated GV slots would, in my opinion, create GV battles where half the participants either don't want to be there, or have no previous experience in tanks.
A sealed-off ground war would, in my opinion, be a little too gamey, especially given the limited number of ground units we have available for use. Also it would not engender any sense of team unity between GVers and fliers, which I think is great bonding in scenarios.
I don't think the method we used for Red Storm was perfect, but I think it's the best alternative we have, given some modifications.
Here are my ideas for modifications:
1) Spawns that are a little further out, and also with careful attention given to the fact that neither side will be ale to achieve air superiority before the other (no side has airfields significantly closer than the other)
2) Make some of the objectives "non capture" objectives. Base capture has so many problems with "gamey"ness, plus it allows either side to easily funnel air support to an objective that is clearly marked on everyone's map.
What could we do instead? I'd love instead to have some objectives such as defend a railway bridge in some location, defenders set up along a rail line that has an enemy supply train periodically coming by. Each time the train passes, the defenders destroy the train. The attackers must regain control of the railway bridge, and the way to document victory is to have someone on the ground take screenshots of the train now passing undamaged over the bridge. That is the victory condition for that objective.
Not only is this more "realistic", and less incumbered by arcadish game mechanics, but it makes it slightly more difficult for air assets to be vectored in DIRECTLY to the battlefield. Sure, they will find it eventually, and with KP vectoring some will find it easier than others, but that slightly discrepancy between having a large flashing "V23" to be vectored to, and having to find something like 9-8-1-5 might create just enough "fog of war" to eliminate some of the simultaneous air asset overwhelming of ground forces. I think it would make the battle for air superiority over the GV battle a little more dependent on communication and skill, rather than mass numbers. And in the end, if I get bombed in a GV because the other side's air support is better skilled and better communicated, I will have no complaint. (GV's will still be able to take AA units of course).
Just an idea that I think we eliminate some of the complaints from GV'ers (remember you still can't please everyone). But I think there will ultimately be far more complaints if we go with either Options (a) or (b), as you described, Brooke.
As for the idea of eliminating GV's entirely from scenarios, I really hope this never happens. Even in future scenarios if I do not GV, I still greatly enjoy having that aspect of the scenario to "root for" and support either directly or indirectly.
-
Hello all, <S>
I'm one of those guys that flyes 90% of the time, have fun in GV's 9% of the time and uses PT Boats, Field AAA or naval artillery 1% of the time. If, on one hand, I'm almost incapable of killing a GV from a plane, on the other hand, I rarely get a GV kill in a GV... What a disaster, I know! But I like riding tanks and tank battles. I would like to participate in a GV Centric Scenario. I would love to be part of a battle with hundreds of GV's.
I agree with Hoffman and Trotter. There are many things to explore in GV'ing and special scenarios. Must be developed specific terrains for specific tank battles where aerial component must be reduced, limited or hampered. These terrains, scenarios,whatever, must be big enough to force both attackers and defenders to drive for quite a bit. These terrains must provide good cover and have hidden objectives. You don't even have to capture zip, just occupy several pre-determined zones and keep them defended and guarded until the end of the scenario.
I am also in favour of the introduction of early and mid-war armoured vehicles. This would help a lot in the creation of many scenarios. If, for the GV fans to have fun we have to forbid contact with aircraft, let's do it. If we must run scenarios exclusively dedicated to GV's, well, why not?
Cheers,
-
Dropping a bomb that does no damage was not considered an attack. Moray disagrees, but that's how we saw it and decided on it -- we felt that it would be silly to preclude a player from dropping a bomb that does no damage to anyone. Just a small step farther down that road are rules like "A-20's can't fly in a threatening manner or scare any GV's even if they do no damage at all to the GV's" Dropping a bomb near you that does no damage to you is not exerting any force on you or injuring you.
Anyway, we don't need to argue about it. I don't at all feel that debate will change any minds on the issue.
In the future, we'll make the rules more clear by not using words like "attack" but use precise language like "cannot cause damage to".
-
I think trotter is onto something. 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.
-
Dropping a bomb that does no damage was not considered an attack. Moray disagrees, but that's how we saw it and decided on it -- we felt that it would be silly to preclude a player from dropping a bomb that does no damage to anyone. Just a small step farther down that road are rules like "A-20's can't fly in a threatening manner or scare any GV's even if they do no damage at all to the GV's" Dropping a bomb near you that does no damage to you is not exerting any force on you or injuring you.
Anyway, we don't need to argue about it. I don't at all feel that debate will change any minds on the issue.
In the future, we'll make the rules more clear by not using words like "attack" but use precise language like "cannot cause damage to".
Brooke - with all the due respect I have for you and your tremendous efforts and intent to bring fun and enjoyable scenarios to us all, I find it incredulous that you can't see how utterly ridiculous and just plain stupid your position this is.
An attack is to direct lethal force towards an enemy with the intent of destroying it, whether you succeed or not. You can't assume from the logs that because a plane missed that they weren't trying to hit a tank. Not even from film could you be sure of that either. Since there is no way to judge actual intent from the logs, and since I don't believe there was an established 'bomb marking' tactic in WWII, and since there is a historically viable tactic (though more difficult) of aircraft 'spotting and reporting' the location of enemy tanks, allowng aircraft to mark tanks by dropping bombs 'near' them is both logically and intellegently ridiculous.
-
Hoffman, Trotter, sparrow, and 5point0 are surprisily (at least to me) in near lock-step with many of the ideas, rules and conditions I’ve been incorporating into my GV-centric scenarios and would like to try out.
Such as -
- different tactical objectives other than capturing a base, such as defending river bridges, cities, towns (but not bases), factories, or preventing the enemy from reaching a certain position in force.
- when a base capture is the objective, allowing for a sufficient, but limited number of troops (often as a result of a choice by the C.O. whether to carry X# of supplies or troops by a limited number of M3’s/SDK’s, but replenishable).
- greater transit distances before initial combat allowing for greater subterfuge, mis-direction, deception, diversion and the need for accurate and timely reconnaissance
- A possibly more common mix of units available to both sides to eliminate historically-enforced imbalance in forces.
- Unlimited lives with built-in limitations such as the 5 min. re-up time delay.
- Limiting what vehicles can inflict object damage (i.e. only LVT4’s and SDK’s, or Ostwinds can take down buildings, strats, etc.)
- Different victory point structures.
To let a bit of the ‘cat-out-of-the-bag’ as it were, I’ll sketch out what I think could be the first scenario I’d like to put on. By the way, I’d call my series of scenarios “Steel Battlefields” with a representative title relating to the specific tactical situation imposed. These mighted be presented in-between regular, established scenarios, with the help of a CM or two, and would allow everyone to see some different setups and rules that might transfer to the full Air-centric scenarios. Steel Battlefields might only be 2 or 3 Saturdays in a row to complete, but would have similar structure and format to the current scenarios: i.e. short pre-registration, established C.O.’s, specific unit designations and numbers, definded rules set, etc.
The first one I might put on might be called something like “The Last Bastion”. Red Force would have a slight numerical advantage in total number of units, but this would be somewhat offset by being required to have one (or possibly two depending on total number of players) dedicated “assault” company containing 8x in a mix of LVT4’s (min. 2x) with the 75mm howitzer, and SDK’s (min. 2x) with rockets and troops or supplies (C.O.’s choice). Only the vehicles in these assault units could destroy city buildings or any other ground objects, and therefore are primary targets for the opposing Blue Force to seek out and destroy to save the city and disrupt Red’s battleplan.
In addition, the Red Force might have something like one company of 12x Tigers (three 4 element platoons), one company of 12x Shermans (3 platoons), and a company of 12x Panzers, and one recon/supply platoon of 4 SDKs with supplies only (no rockets), and one Air Defense company (8x) consisting of two platoons with 2x Wirbles and 2x Ostwinds in each. Total of 56 GV’s.
The Red Force (usually designated as the attacker) might have three or four, or even five initial deployment bases available at different driving distance (20-40 minutes from a large city complex (but with somewhat closer re-up bases for later in the battle to minimize out-of-action and travel time), or two or more target objectives, and positioned around these in two or three directions (north, west and south).
Blue Force ground units could include a Cavalry troop (8x) consisting of one platoon of 2x M8’s and 2x T-34/76, and one of 2x M8’s and 2x T-34/85. One scout/supply platoon of 2x jeeps and 2x M3’s. Two companies (8x) consisting of two platoons containing 2x Tigers and 2x panzers each, one company (8x) of two platoons containing 2x Shermans and 2x Panzers. Finally, one independent platoon of 4x T-34/85’s and one air defense platoon of 1x Wirblewind, 1x Ostwind, 2x M16’s. Total of 44 GV’s.
The Red C.O. would logically need to conserve and protect his assault units while in transit, and could try to hide the route of the assault units by send three different columns from three different bases, or protect them by combining into one large re-enforced column with most of his heavy tanks, or some other diversionary plan. Blue C.O. would have to quickly use limited air and ground scouting assets to try and find the right enemy column containing the assault unit(s) and quickly vector the best of his smaller forces to destroy them, and/or determine the primary or intial target objective of the enemy to postion his slightly smaller force for effective defense.
Victory would be determined by total number of ground units destroyed by each side (1 pt. by ground/1/2 pt. by air) plus 2 points for every object destroyed or remaining at the end of a frame, plus 10 MINUS points for every objective destroyed by a tank and not a valid assault vehicle.
As for aircraft participation (and this is just a possible mix off the top of my head), if included at all, might be as follows.
For the Red force, 2 C-47’s for recon and supply, 1 fighter squadron of 8x Bf109E’s and 1 fighter squadron of 8x F4F’s and 1 attack squadron which could be comprised of 4x D3A’s with only 1 250kg bomb & 4x Yak9 T’s for gun attack. They would have to sortie from starting bases requiring at least 20-30 minutes to reach the closest possible GV conflict.
Blue force might have 2 RV8s for recon, and 1 fighter squadron of 4x Hurricane I’s & 4x Spitfires I’s, 1 fighter squadron of P-40B’s, 1 attack squadron of 6x Hurricane IID’s with the 40mm guns and 1 attack squadron of 6x P-40E with one 500lb. bomb.
There would be no level bombers to take down any hangers or towns, and no bombing or straffing of any ground objects by fighter or attack aircraft.
After two deaths in the air, each pilot reverts to a designated GV reinforcement unit and the battle plays out on the ground.
This is just one possible setup and there could be further rules and restrictions to create more variable levels of GV/Air interaction. And of course there are variable map and terrain options, and target objectives that create different tactical situations, with or without aircraft.
-
Ok, just keep putting up the missions, ill keep joining em, A8Popy... :rock
-
You can't assume from the logs that because a plane missed that they weren't trying to hit a tank. Not even from film could you be sure of that either.
Exactly. You can't tell either way. You *can* absolutely tell if a person did or did not damage a tank. Also, regardless, a bomb dropped away from a tank does not exert any physical event at all on the tank. It doesn't move the tank. It doesn't damage the tank. It doesn't impede the tank's movement. It doesn't force the tank against its will to move from a spot. It doesn't even get dirt on the tank.
Again, debating this issue isn't going to change any minds.
And, again, in future scenarios, if there are any restrictions like that again, we won't use the phrase "can't attack" -- we will use "can't cause physical damage to". That should clear it all up.
-
At no point does the definition of "attack" include "success" or "kill". Revisionist history in the making...like saying some people "quit" when they were fired. :aok
Marking with bombs.... strafing... all fit under the definition of "attack".
I want to fix this problem too, but if you want to continually shift the reasoning, it won't get fixed. In the future, add weather. Eliminate the icon range for GV's. Hell, make it more than 4 and a half minutes for one sides ground attackers to get to the field they're attacking. That's a start.
You can have a mixed battlefield without making it uneven.
This continues to baffle and amaze me. In the end all I can say is that the overall attitude of the "tankers" {on the axis side} in the game must be reflected in the gaminess of the overall environment. I've never seen such sour grapes and to me the real answer is to just suck it up and play the game. To the best of my knowledge I am the only pilot who actually marked a tank with a bomb. This happened early in frame 1. From the apparent end result it seemed that this one incident totally destroyed the morale of the german GVers and was a crutch to explain the total whupping they took at the hands of our GVers that just spanked them around.
Basically they just rolled over and died and should be ashamed of how badly they let there side down, the solution isn't better rules it's better participants.
Here is the actual event that started this ruckus (at beginning of the clip)
http://www.az-dsl.com/snaphook/Frame%201%20fun.ahf (http://www.az-dsl.com/snaphook/Frame%201%20fun.ahf)
-
Folks, please keep in mind that there were many German GV'ers who did a great job in a difficult situation. A big <S> to those folks.
-
This continues to baffle and amaze me. In the end all I can say is that the overall attitude of the "tankers" {on the axis side} in the game must be reflected in the gaminess of the overall environment. I've never seen such sour grapes and to me the real answer is to just suck it up and play the game. To the best of my knowledge I am the only pilot who actually marked a tank with a bomb. This happened early in frame 1. From the apparent end result it seemed that this one incident totally destroyed the morale of the german GVers and was a crutch to explain the total whupping they took at the hands of our GVers that just spanked them around.
Basically they just rolled over and died and should be ashamed of how badly they let there side down, the solution isn't better rules it's better participants.
Here is the actual event that started this ruckus (at beginning of the clip)
http://www.az-dsl.com/snaphook/Frame%201%20fun.ahf (http://www.az-dsl.com/snaphook/Frame%201%20fun.ahf)
I'd hardly say that we rolled over and died, considering that 4 of 6 top axis killers are tankers. I actually take some offense to that.
Tankers Kills
dr7 36
Sloehand 34
Coprhead 22
kansas2 17
Perhaps in saying axis tankers, just refer to the ones that left. I very pleased with how the GVrs on the Axis side who stuck it out did. They all have my utmost respect as people. They stuck it out knowing that 15-20 guys would not return after frame one, they did their jobs, and put forth great effort. Dr7, Sloe, Kansas2, Cryptic, and PRS3RD2 all deserve recognition for their efforts and willingness to stay and fight. To me it shows a positive insight to their characters.
-
I find the entire attitude expressed here offensive. A scenario is a complex undertaking and overall success or failure can hinge on a complex interaction of events. Almost every individual squad experiences significant difficulties at some point in a scenario...often in every frame. I know that in frame #2 strips bombers got knocked down 100% before there escort even found them. In the same frame we (221BAD) got bounced at V57 by 190F's and suffered 100% losses without being able to ever accomplish our mission. We were then sent into A7 and suffered 100% losses again. For some reason an unrealistic expectation exists that GV's are somehow different when the reality is that you are no different then strategic or TAC air assets. In the end your relying on combined arms teamwork to enable you to complete your mission...end of story. The idea that you (GVers) need special protections is absurd in my mind and completely defeats the entire purpose of a scenario as far as I'm concerned. My comments are aimed at those who rolled over and went belly up...not those who slogged on.
-
Exactly. You can't tell either way. You *can* absolutely tell if a person did or did not damage a tank. Also, regardless, a bomb dropped away from a tank does not exert any physical event at all on the tank. It doesn't move the tank. It doesn't damage the tank. It doesn't impede the tank's movement. It doesn't force the tank against its will to move from a spot. It doesn't even get dirt on the tank.
Again, debating this issue isn't going to change any minds.
And, again, in future scenarios, if there are any restrictions like that again, we won't use the phrase "can't attack" -- we will use "can't cause physical damage to". That should clear it all up.
Sorry, but no it won't. I'm not trying to be confrontational, I'm simply saying you are so wrong in this, if you continue thinking this way, you'll need a whole new crop of GV'ers each and every scenario. You really don't understand the importance of this, obviously.
-
I find the entire attitude expressed here offensive. A scenario is a complex undertaking and overall success or failure can hinge on a complex interaction of events. Almost every individual squad experiences significant difficulties at some point in a scenario...often in every frame. I know that in frame #2 strips bombers got knocked down 100% before there escort even found them. In the same frame we (221BAD) got bounced at V57 by 190F's and suffered 100% losses without being able to ever accomplish our mission. We were then sent into A7 and suffered 100% losses again. For some reason an unrealistic expectation exists that GV's are somehow different when the reality is that you are no different then strategic or TAC air assets. In the end your relying on combined arms teamwork to enable you to complete your mission...end of story. The idea that you (GVers) need special protections is absurd in my mind and completely defeats the entire purpose of a scenario as far as I'm concerned. My comments are aimed at those who rolled over and went belly up...not those who slogged on.
+1
I feel exactly the same way. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Those axis players that :cry over it are giving all of their side a bad image.
I hope these scenarios talked about in this thread are not just a capitalization on the bad attitude mentioned. Sloe you have some good ideas, and I like the idea of scenarios centered around gv battles more than anything else - because as we know, there were epic GV battles in WW2. The setup discussion is great, but I tend to cringe when hearing too many rules other than 'don't shoot at the green guys'. Rules are what makes a scenario gamy.
Edit:
Sorry, but no it won't. I'm not trying to be confrontational, I'm simply saying you are so wrong in this, if you continue thinking this way, you'll need a whole new crop of GV'ers each and every scenario. You really don't understand the importance of this, obviously.
IMO having organized much of the event prevented Brooke from baby sitting GV's and making sure no one dared to put a couple of rounds on a tank in the process of 'marking him'. Simply put, I don't think it came across anyone's mind that this would become such a problem.
Part of Brookes success as an event organizer comes from his easy going nature and the missing urge to be an armchair general. Any person who wishes to organize events should possess these two qualities if he is to succeed in that role.
End of my 0.02 to this thread.
-
Sorry, but no it won't. I'm not trying to be confrontational, I'm simply saying you are so wrong in this, if you continue thinking this way, you'll need a whole new crop of GV'ers each and every scenario. You really don't understand the importance of this, obviously.
No what you need to do is either eliminate GVing (bad idea IMO) or educate GVers that a scenario is a combined arms event and that they won't be coddled. In a perfect world you'd have real spotting planes with colored smoke but any airplane was capable of acting in a spotting roll under appropriate circumstances. A GV battle does not occur in a vacuum any more then a strategic bombing attack or an air to ground tactical air strike. Your attitude underscores the real issue, once special accommodations are made unrealistic expectations take hold. The simple reality is that we're all targets for someone....
-
< nevermind >
-
This continues to baffle and amaze me. In the end all I can say is that the overall attitude of the "tankers" {on the axis side} in the game must be reflected in the gaminess of the overall environment. I've never seen such sour grapes and to me the real answer is to just suck it up and play the game. To the best of my knowledge I am the only pilot who actually marked a tank with a bomb. This happened early in frame 1. From the apparent end result it seemed that this one incident totally destroyed the morale of the german GVers and was a crutch to explain the total whupping they took at the hands of our GVers that just spanked them around.
Basically they just rolled over and died and should be ashamed of how badly they let there side down, the solution isn't better rules it's better participants.
Here is the actual event that started this ruckus (at beginning of the clip)
http://www.az-dsl.com/snaphook/Frame%201%20fun.ahf (http://www.az-dsl.com/snaphook/Frame%201%20fun.ahf)
It's not all about you, sir, no matter how much you want it to be. Your one pushing of the rules just added into the gaminess. And I'm pretty sure the fact that the Tigers had the highest total kills means they shelled out the whooping, with significantly fewer numbers.
If you are directing your venom at me, you should note that I changed to supporting my comrades on the ground, and had the most air to ground kills of anyone, on either side, in this scenario.
Nobody rolled over and died.
The Most:
Total Kills: Sethbag 39
A2A Kills: WMLute 28
A2G Kills: A8Moray 9
Might I suggest you take your namesake to heart, and get a bit more "humble", instead of posting such inflammatory crap as you just did.
We're just trying to fix what is broken. Your post isn't helping that.
-
The only thing "broken" is your collective attitude. Everyone has to rely on teamwork and someone else but GVer's are somehow entitled to a sterile environment? What a crock. As far as I'm concerned the entire "take my ball and go home" attitude displayed simply indicates that the rules were already bent a bit to far before.
-
Folks, please keep in mind that there were many German GV'ers who did a great job in a difficult situation. A big <S> to those folks.
<S> to them...
Strip
-
At this point, I've found instances of BOTH IL-2 groups targeting GV's in every frame (kills and assists on GV's by both groups). Why bother to write a rule set?
Brooke, just take all the rules back to the MA style at this point. Don't even write them. Don 't make "concessions" as you call it, to GV's, (it's not like they can't already be seen from 5,000 feet with a bright red tag)
and just let each scenario wipe away the GV component a little more. I love to GV, and I'll never do it again in a scenario, a sentiment already echoed by many of the top GV'rs that joined this scenario, thinking that you "learned something" from Tunisia.
Don't make "concessions" to any side. Just throw it all up in a big MA free for all...after all, that's where it ends up. You get, "Glide bombing" not "Dive Bombing"; "Marking tanks with bombs" not "Attacking tanks with bombs".
Or, you just get an impossible situation, where you can't tell which group of IL's is the GV attack squadron, and they use that to their advantage and both attack GV's.
-
You assume that Allies were acting malicously, did it ever occur to you that some damage can come from legal tactics?
Like bombing buildings....
-
The only thing "broken" is your collective attitude. Everyone has to rely on teamwork and someone else but GVer's are somehow entitled to a sterile environment? What a crock. As far as I'm concerned the entire "take my ball and go home" attitude displayed simply indicates that the rules were already bent a bit to far before.
If you just want 15 people each frame to be targets, with bright red icons visible from 5,000', unable to shoot back, your plan is a great one.
Good luck finding anyone who wants that kind of fun.
-
You assume that Allies were acting malicously, did it ever occur to you that some damage can come from legal tactics?
Like bombing buildings....
Always an excuse.
-
Excuse?
Its already been proven that it did and does happen within the rules. A VH being bombed with vehicles rolling out of it is a valid target.
Despite any vehicles taking damage....is this the case all of the time? Probably not but it does happen and screen shots were posted of it.
Strip
-
I blame karaya.
-
Excuse?
Its already been proven that it did and does happen within the rules. A VH being bombed with vehicles rolling out of it is a valid target.
Despite any vehicles taking damage....is this the case all of the time? Probably not but it does happen and screen shots were posted of it.
Strip
Heaven help me....I agree with strip, as is evidenced by the logs. I was in a Ju-88 at 5K, and did not even SEE a vehicle below me.
14:59:06 Destroyed a vehicle hangar at base #23
14:59:07 Shot down a Ostwind flown by jollyFE.
-
Taking what a few have said here, and adding a few thoughts of my own, I offer up this idea as a possible scenario for a “tank-centric” battle. Now, before anyone takes it too much to heart, keep in mind that this is just an idea. For myself, I have not participated in an AH scenario yet, but I do take part in FSO… and I am drawing on part of what I have seen and experienced there to help put this together.
The maps below, represents 4 grid sectors in which the battle would take place. It is completely non-historical in the sense that is does not represent any “real” place, or battle that ever took place. I added names for the “towns” for ease of identification, and to add a bit of humor (hopefully).
Also note, that I have little experience with the Map Editor, and some of the things I am proposing may not be possible or feasible… and if so, please feel free to point that out. Also, since this map does not exist, someone would have to create it, or something like it, in order for this to be done. However, since the battle is only going to take place over 4 sectors, it doesn’t seem like it would be that much work, when compared to making an entire map.
(http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l273/woosle_2006/TankMap.jpg)
Why only 4 sectors? To concentrate masses of tanks into an epic ground battle, and to limit the time it takes to traverse the distance, and engage in combat to something that can be done in the span of just over 2 hours of real time.
The trees on the map should be laid out very densely, so that travel through the forested areas will be extremely slow and difficult for GV’s. The exception would be the roads leading through them. The roadway areas would be only wide enough to allow a few tanks to effectively operate side by side at one time. This will allow for several things:
1) Faster travel on the roads as opposed to the forests
2) Realistic defense choke points and ambushes… giving the defenders an advantage.
THE MAP SETUP:
The Allies (Green) hold the central town of Addinkdale, and the 4 surrounding villages of Sudzville, Pyroville, Skuzzydale, and Rosieham. They have been surrounded by the Axis forces (yellow) and must defend them, and the factories at Addinkdale at all costs.
Addinkdale: Comprised of a city and 2 or 3 factories. About the size of the grouped “tank towns” we see on the ndisles map or the tank town in the DA.
Outlying Towns: about the size of a single tank town… no factories.
Vehicle Bases 1 & 2: On plateaus at 10,000 ft, with no access to the rest of the map except by the spawn points indicated. May not be attacked by opposing forces.
Airbases 3 & 4: On plateaus at 10,000 ft, with no access to the rest of the map except by the spawn points indicated. May not be attacked by opposing forces.
Radar is off, and detection ranges are set to the absolute minimum (zero if this is possible). This will make detection of opposing forces dependent on the eyes and ears of players.
ORDER OF BATTLE:
The Allies should be outnumbered by the Axis in this scenario, as defense on this map should be easier than attacking. The exact ratio is something that can be discussed later. Also, the air component should not equal more than 10% of the total numbers of each side… keeping this primarily a ground fight. The primary functions of aircraft would be reconnaissance and supply. Close air support, and air interdiction would be performed as needed.
Allies:
Jeep (for scout & supply roles)
M3 (for scout and supply roles)
M8
M16
T-34
Sherman VC or T-34/85 (in limited numbers)
P-47D-40
C-47
Axis:
Jeep (for scout and supply roles)
Sdkfz-251 (for scout and supply roles)
M8 (its as close as we have to approximate the SdKfz 234)
Ostwind / Wirblewind
Panzer IV
Tiger I (in limited numbers)
FW-190A-8
C-47
SCENARIO TIMELINE
Allies:
T+0: May spawn in GV’s from V2 into any of the spawn points as directed by their CiC. From those initial positions, they may send out scout patrols to look for advancing Axis forces, and set up their initial defensive lines. It would be up to the CiC to decide which units spawn where, and how best to defend each of the outlying towns, as he will not know in advance which directions the attacks will come from, or how heavy each one will be.
Air units may spawn from A3 to scout for opposing ground units, and engage Axis air and ground forces in the P-47 only at this point.
T+15: All fields are now closed. Air units may return to A3 to refuel and rearm as many times as needed. Any players killed in GV’s or shot down in aircraft, must now wait until T+60 for the reinforcements phase to get another chance to reup.
T+60: A3 ONLY reopens for all Allied players. Those assigned to GV’s may spawn into Addinkdale ONLY, and only in the T-34. Players assigned to air units, may reup in the C-47 ONLY, carrying vehicle supplies. Pilots who were not shot down during the first 60 minutes, may now return to base if needed and reup in a C-47 if needed.
T+75: A3 Closes again. All allied players are on their final life. Scenario will now run to its completion.
Axis:
T+0: May spawn in GV’s from V1 into any of the spawn points as directed by their CiC. From those initial positions, they may send out advance scouts to probe Allied defenses, and begin their advance with their assault forces. It would be up to the CiC to decide which units spawn where, and how best to attack each of the outlying towns, as he will not know in advance how heavily each of the towns have been fortified.
Air units may spawn from A4 to scout for opposing ground units, and engage Allied air and ground forces in the FW-190 only at this point.
T+15: All fields are now closed. Air units may return to A4 to refuel and rearm as many times as needed. Any players killed in GV’s or shot down in aircraft, must now wait until T+60 for the reinforcements phase to get another chance to reup.
T+60: A4 ONLY reopens for all Axis players. Those assigned to GV’s may spawn into any of the spawn points shown on the map as directed by the CiC, but only in the Panzer I. Players assigned to air units, may reup in the C-47 ONLY, carrying vehicle supplies. Pilots who were not shot down during the first 60 minutes, may now return to base if needed and reup in a C-47 if needed.
T+75: A4 Closes again. All Axis players are on their final life. Scenario will now run to its completion.
VICTORY CONDITIONS AND SCORING:
Both sides will get points for each opposing ground and air unit destroyed. Points for individual unit type should be weighted, so that the more powerful the unit is, the more points it is worth.
The Axis side will get points for each FACTORY structure they destroy.
The Allies will get points for each FACTORY structure not destroyed.
Note that normal town buildings are not worth anything. The main objectives are the factories at Addinkdale… which keeps the fight moving in that direction.
At the end of the fight, the side with the most points wins.
NOTES:
What I have tried to show with the respawns at T+60, is a “reinforcements” phase. Allies would only be able to deploy reinforcements from Addinkdale, and would have to then send them out where needed to stop the Axis advance. The Axis CiC, would be able to decide which of the 4 spawn points his forces are needed the most, and deploy them accordingly, and continue his advance on Addinkdale.
The reason I propose separate airbases and vehicle bases, instead of just airbases, is to make it easier at T+60 to ensure everyone deploys where they are supposed to… and make it easier for the CM’s so they only have to open up the 2 airfields, and not all of them.
The second phase of air units, allows for badly needed supplies to be dropped in for each sides tanks to continue the fight. It also gives surviving fighters the chance to intercept and shoot down the supply planes.
Given that sectors are 25 miles across, the location of the spawn points and the towns, and the speed of the GV’s involved, one could expect the “action” to start on the ground at around T+30 (give or take). It also allows for a realistic possibility that Axis forces could be attacking the main town of Addinkdale by T+60 (give or take). In contrast, air units could start spotting and engaging within the first 5 – 10 minutes… and pilots would need to be very careful about choosing their engagements.
You may have noticed that there are no capture points in any of the towns. This means there is no need for troops, or any of the usual MA “gameyness” that goes with them (like sneaking an M3 in behind a whole line of tanks to score a meaningless victory). As stated before, attacking the bases on the map is off limits.
So… there is my idea. I am sure it’s not perfect, and I am relying on all of you to add to it and make it better if needed. But… I do think that something along these lines would lead to an exciting, and very enjoyable tank battle, with huge numbers of tanks on each side.
You can also throw in the option of playing a “best 2 out of 3” situation over 3 frames. Frame 1 would start as above. For Frame 2, the Axis would be the defenders… and for Frame 3, the team in the lead gets to choose attack or defense.
Is it historical? Not at all. But it does what we are all wanting. It gives us a confined area, to mass large amounts of tanks, and blow the snot out of each other.
-
At no point does the definition of "attack" include "success" or "kill".
Sorry I didn't read all the posts but what exactly do you think "3 : to begin to affect or to act on injuriously" means?
-
I would be Happy to put my name on the list Sloehand. :banana: :banana:
I wish I could have played in the last seniario but RL got in the way.
<S>
-
If you just want 15 people each frame to be targets, with bright red icons visible from 5,000', unable to shoot back, your plan is a great one.
Good luck finding anyone who wants that kind of fun.
Everyone is a target, the GV's were the only targets with artificial protection. Every GV unit had the ability to launch flaks for air defense. Why would you think your any different then the B-25's, A-20's, IL-2's or JU-88's? Somehow your not interdependent on the rest of your team for mutual protection. I spent time every frame (except #4) flying over targets I couldn't attack while under attack or at risk of attack. I know for a fact that not 1 GV was killed or damaged outside the rules by any A-20 in any frame. While it is certainly clear from the logs that GV's were hit by units not supposed to engage them circumstances are not clear. Just from on range radio chatter I know that german GV's were in the town at A68 and A7 for sure. Collateral damage to GV's deployed in or near legitimate targets is to be expected. The moment that this issue came up on the general scenario BBS I immediately posted the clip here above for review...both by the opposing side and the CM's. The clip clearly shows the intent, coordination and end result. There was zero rules infraction of any kind, nor was there ever any intent to violate either the substance or spirit of the rules. If so many rules violations occurred then produce a few clips for review...
-
Here are my thoughts on the subject, not as a tanker but someone who attends scenarios/FSO regularly;
First I'll say that I've never been really involved in the GV aspect except for an FSO a long time ago in which we were in GV's first life for a frame- I thought it was very fun.
I'll also say that I rarely tank in game, however I love the bombing of the tanks. And I've never understood why this is looked down upon so much the more dedicated GV people. But I think it's extremely fun and challenging.
In Dawn of Battle and Red Storm/Krupp Steel (the former I only flew one frame of and the latter I flew two or three) it seemed that, at least from my very detached viewpoint, the attempt was made to make the GV battle some kind of vacuum (especially in the case of Dawn of Battle) where air-to-ground activity was severely restricted to appease tankers-- it seemed as if there were two scenarios going on, one in the air and one on the ground. (Again this is from the perspective of someone not involved in any way other than hearing the drama around it and knowing that I was not to attack tanks.) To me, this seems to be the wrong way to go about doing it. To me it would seem that in a scenario with GV's, the GV battle should be the center of the action, for the air combatants as well as the ground combatants.
Just my opinion- I hate artificial rules (don't bomb/interact with tanks unless you're allowed to do so). Rather for me when things seem more natural (it's impractical for aircraft other than certain types to interact with GV's) the 'immersive' feeling goes up. Making it difficult for aircraft to kill tanks by introducing new conditions that make it nearly impossible for level bombers to have an effect, and difficult for even dedicated attack aircraft to kill tanks, would in my opinion improve the experience of the GV'ers (who don't have to deal with being bombed so much) and the pilots don't have to deal with rules that, I think, at least, cheapen the event.
Like I said, I love bombing tanks. I don't know why but it's a ton of fun. So, to an extent, I know what nightmare conditions are for an attack pilot.
The first is a lot of air activity. I rarely bomb the tank town in Trinity because there's almost always a lot of air action there, which usually ends up in my big slow attack bird getting shot down. When there's a lot of fighter cover it's very difficult to set up a good run, if you expect to get out alive; which of course is even more important in scenarios.
Another thing you don't want is not being able to find the tanks. I was up yesterday and found it's a lot harder to find tanks without the icon with the new terrain unless you get low (which is bad because you have less altitude to bomb with and it makes you an easier target for fighters.) I think turning off enemy tank icons (or tank icons all together) could actually be beneficial, which is something I never would have said pre-2.14. Setting up scattered low cloud cover would also make air-to-ground work more difficult for aircraft other than dedicated attack aircraft.
Another thing, to make it more difficult to level bomb from altitude, would be to set up opposing, random speed wind layers from maybe 1000-2000 feet up to 20,000 feet or so- not enough to make level bombing useless but enough to make pinpoint bombing impossible. This could also mean you'd have to send large groups of bombers to carpet bomb the new strats instead of 5-6 guys to drop their bombs on the important buildings. I'm not sure how practical that would be though.
In summary-
GV-battle centric action to place a lot of air-to-air importance in killing and defending attack aircraft,
No GV icons
'Weather' in the form of low cloud cover and winds to make it more difficult to bomb, especially level bomb GV's.
I think if implemented these changes could create a very fun combined assault scenario.
-
I think the main problem is the ratio of planes to GVs in scenarios (and in the MA) is just the inverse of real life. This makes GVs nothing more than fun targets for planes. The ratio in the MA is about 5 planes for each GV. In scenarios the ratio is only a bit less. At Kursk there were over 8000 tanks and self propelled guns in the battle. That does not even count the untold thousands of other support GVs. Unfortunately I don't have the order of battle for the aircraft, but it's got to be in the hundreds, not thousands. So the ratio of aircraft to GVs in the real Kursk battle has got to be something like 1 aircraft to 10 GVs. That's 50 times less than MA or scenarios. So a GVer is 50 times more likely to be killed by aircraft, making his life essentially worthless.
Why would a GVer want to waste time in that kind of environment? So either there needs to be annoying gamey rules or you need a scenario that has almost all slots as GVs. And yes, removing the neon signs from the GVs would help. I personally think that for scenarios the neon signs should be removed from everything. You'd still be able to spot cons and it would just require better communication skills to ID them as friend or foe.
Personally, I think they should be bold and at least try a scenario with a 10 to 1 ratio of GV slots to plane slots, neon off, heavy cloud cover, and no limitations on attacks on GVs. You never know, you might get some takers.
-
The historical realities varied, in the end the side that controlled the air won the ground battle. The air battle over Kursk was the largest of WW2 in any theater...and the soviets maintained air equality just as they did earlier at Kuban. While theoretically the tactical air assets had superiority the allies only had a maximum of 30 tactical air slots with 60 lives compared to the 20 GV's x 4 lives. Additionally the GV's did not lose a life to any air attack or when in a halftrack. Combine this with aircraft tasking on other targets and the layout is not really that imbalanced.
To me the real area of improvement would be a larger front offering significant flexibility with both frontal bases and more importantly reasonable spawns in more reward area's. This would allow for both an initial assault and then a follow up move to engagement as forces were pulled and spawned to contain the enemy advance. In effect you would have a pure tactical campaign with no strategic targets. The attacking force would have no spawn capability beyond its initial active bases and thus the flow of supplies would be critical since repairing damaged vehicles would be integral to maintaining a correct pace of movement. This would place a proper emphasis on both air and ground interdiction of supply units for the defenders and protection of same for the attackers. Also a fundamental understanding of line of march and use of airlift capabilities. A battle where actually disguising your route of march to some degree and managing to keep your logistics trains moving would place a heavier burden on TAC air assets.
As a single example if it was absolutely mission critical that at T+90 C-47's were able to make a low level drop to resupply the 26 (random number) remaining tanks of "task force alpha" as they positioned to envelope and overrun the enemy left flank and secure "VXX" the designated supply depot for the enemy right flank... a full 65 minutes after being passed thru the initial assault brigade and "disappearing" into the void. To a degree weather would help but even in good weather meeting engagements were common in fluid situations. No question eliminating icons would help...but Icons only show at 1.5 anyway. The bigger issue is who controls the skies over the battle field at what time. The biggest issue for both sides wasn't the other guys planes...it was having your own air where you needed it at the right time...something both sides struggled with.
-
I would be Happy to put my name on the list Sloehand. :banana: :banana:
I wish I could have played in the last seniario but RL got in the way.
<S>
Would have loved to have had you with us FireDrgn, and could have used you to be sure. :cheers:
-
I very pleased with how the GVrs on the Axis side who stuck it out did. They all have my utmost respect as people. They stuck it out knowing that 15-20 guys would not return after frame one, they did their jobs, and put forth great effort. Dr7, Sloe, Kansas2, Cryptic, and PRS3RD2 all deserve recognition for their efforts and willingness to stay and fight. To me it shows a positive insight to their characters.
Absolutely. A big <S> and much respect to all of the German tankers who stuck it out and fought hard. :salute :aok
-
Personally, I think they should be bold and at least try a scenario with a 10 to 1 ratio of GV slots to plane slots, neon off, heavy cloud cover, and no limitations on attacks on GVs. You never know, you might get some takers.
Someone who gets it. Turn off the neon sign over the tank, put weather in, and have zero limitations. That's what you have to do to get a GV following. Until you do something like that, you won't win either way.
-
Yep, those are points that figured into real GV battles. But:
The vast majority of players prefer planes, so it's unlikely that we'd be able to fill a scenario having a 10:1 ratio of GV's to planes.
It isn't possible to turn off icons.
It is possible to have thicker clouds near the ground, but I'm not sure that would impede air attack much because of the icons. However, when there was too much cloud cover, planes tended not to be sent on ground attack. So, the resulting situation can be closely approximated regardless of icons by not having planes attack GV's.
-
With respect to the 10:1 GV's to planes, that's why we tried having only a particular set of planes attack GV's. That way, we were able to have a scenario with a lot of planes (which again is what most players want) yet try to get away from GV's feeling the effect of it being 1:10 GV's to planes. By restricting to one squadron, full turnout would have resulted in an effect of roughly 2:1 GV's to planes.
-
Sorry, but no it won't. I'm not trying to be confrontational, I'm simply saying you are so wrong in this, if you continue thinking this way, you'll need a whole new crop of GV'ers each and every scenario. You really don't understand the importance of this, obviously.
So GV'ers will play in and be happy with a scenario that says "except for special aircraft, no aircraft can cause damage to, drop bombs near, or shoot bullets near tanks" but will refuse to play in or be totally dissatisfied with a scenario that says "except for special aircraft, no aircraft can cause damage to tanks, but aircraft can drop bombs or shoot bullets that do not damage tanks"?
To me, that is being way too touchy if the critical difference is whether or not planes can do things that cause no damage -- it's the same as them just creating sound and a flash of light. But folks have their preferences, and I don't expect their preferences to be the same as mine.
However, as mentioned above, precluding things like that is impractical. Judging whether or not damage was done at least is straightforward and absolute. Judging whether a bomb was dropped too near or a bullet shot too near is not straightforward and is subjective. It would be too much headache to deal with that, likely with lots of films to gather and look through based on complaints.
As I talked about above, the three options I see to handle all of this are: (a) no interaction between GV's and aircraft at all; (b) no dedicated GV positions at all and X lives in planes and Y lives in GV's for all players; or (c) Red Storm-style rules. (a) would work best for GV'ers, but there are other players who would complain about it. We'd have to consider if we'd lose more players than we gain. (b) provides no dedicated spots for GV enthusiasts, but we get rid of the headaches, it is proven to work, and it results in a lot more GV's on the battlefield. (c) sort of works in that there are GV enthusiasts who enjoyed Red Storm, but of course there is a group that did not. We'd have to consider whether or not there are enough GV'ers who are fine with it, and we'd have to realize that there would be at least some GV'ers who wouldn't play in it.
That's how I see it currently -- my own view, not necessarily that of anyone else. We'll all continue to ponder and discuss, as it's not something we need to decide immediately.
I know that everyone here is giving their opinions to have better scenarios. Our difficulty is just that, like with movies and food, not everyone agrees on what is best. So, we try to pick a good balance, and we occasionally try different things in scenarios to see how it goes.
-
Brooke, to me its pretty simple. No one should get preferential treatment. Both sides had planes vulched while rearming, bounced during or shortly after takeoff or knocked down while RTB. Buffs were jumped repeatedly either before the escorts hooked up, because they were flying without escort or the escorts were driven off or killed. As far as I'm concerned any plane should be able to attack any target it happens to be in a position to...end of story. It's up to the CiC for each side to allocate and protect his assets as he see's fit. Above and beyond that both sides had unlimited access to wirbles...
-
Brooke, to me its pretty simple. No one should get preferential treatment. Both sides had planes vulched while rearming, bounced during or shortly after takeoff or knocked down while RTB. Buffs were jumped repeatedly either before the escorts hooked up, because they were flying without escort or the escorts were driven off or killed. As far as I'm concerned any plane should be able to attack any target it happens to be in a position to...end of story. It's up to the CiC for each side to allocate and protect his assets as he see's fit. Above and beyond that both sides had unlimited access to wirbles...
I like that idea, or how about only special planes can attack bombers?
I am tired of being jumped by uber cannon rides.....
:rolleyes:
(For the record I do agree with humble.)
-
Humble, there are indeed folks who do not like restrictions on attacks.
In scenarios, we try our best to balance history, playability, action, and player enjoyment. These things sometimes pull in opposite directions. In the case of GV's, it was true historically that there were a lot more GV's than aircraft. So, if we have scenarios with 50 GV's and 150 aircraft and no restrictions, the GV's can get swarmed by aircraft in totally non-historical ratio. By restricting aircraft-GV interaction, we were trying to get it to be more historical in that ratio.
Now, if we have scenarios with 200 players, and all of them are going to be in a GV at some point (because they get some lives in aircraft and some in GV's), then we have a lot more GV's and need less restriction. That's one way to go.
-
Brooke,
I actually understand completely and have no issue with reasonable restrictions. For example the restriction that a GV death due to air attack is in my mind a reasonable compromise for the numbers imbalance. In effect the only penalty is a lose of potentially superior position. This is counterbalanced by the reality that a "superior" position often is outflanked and ammo runs out, so in effect an aerial assault could actually add a life in that it would allow a tactical withdrawal from a position in the process of being compromised. The flip side is that the bombers and attack planes are at risk and restricted from having any impact on the GV battle itself.
From my limited perspective in this scenario (since I wasn't on the command team) the biggest drawback for allied GV's was the lack of direct control of any dedicated air assets during the 1st few frames. While this appeared to improve (and appeared to have significant impact) in the later frames the reality is that dedicated air assets under the direct control of the ground commander are essential in my mind for any sustained survivability. Tactics on the ground will always be dictated by conditions in the air to a large degree and the idea that a ground campaign can be conducted in a vacuum are misguided and entirely against the grain with regard to the intent of a scenario. The development and integral deployment of AA units was a clear indication of the realities. The very sporadic use of such weapons systems by the axis was as much to blame as any other factor, especially since aerial death did not count...so the supply of wirbles was effectively unlimited.
Personally I'd have deployed 1 wirbie/2 tiger sets as often as practical at key choke points since they are effectively "free" while aircraft lives were not replaceable.
-
I do think a mainly GV scenario is in order, like say the battle of Kursk or something. As for the last scenario, I don't think there was enough GV's, thats why I signed up to fly. Tunisia seemed to work out well, at least for me, I got bombed like everyone else, but kept on fighting. Nothing will be perfect to satisfy every single person. Someone will always find a way to complain about something.
-
I do think a mainly GV scenario is in order, like say the battle of Kursk or something.
I don't believe there is a kursk map, the CMs might be working on one. Blauk has said that the new Karelia map is coming out in January though :x.
-
So GV'ers will play in and be happy with a scenario that says "except for special aircraft, no aircraft can cause damage to, drop bombs near, or shoot bullets near tanks" but will refuse to play in or be totally dissatisfied with a scenario that says "except for special aircraft, no aircraft can cause damage to tanks, but aircraft can drop bombs or shoot bullets that do not damage tanks"?
To me, that is being way too touchy if the critical difference is whether or not planes can do things that cause no damage -- it's the same as them just creating sound and a flash of light. But folks have their preferences, and I don't expect their preferences to be the same as mine.
However, as mentioned above, precluding things like that is impractical. Judging whether or not damage was done at least is straightforward and absolute. Judging whether a bomb was dropped too near or a bullet shot too near is not straightforward and is subjective. It would be too much headache to deal with that, likely with lots of films to gather and look through based on complaints.
As I talked about above, the three options I see to handle all of this are: (a) no interaction between GV's and aircraft at all; (b) no dedicated GV positions at all and X lives in planes and Y lives in GV's for all players; or (c) Red Storm-style rules. (a) would work best for GV'ers, but there are other players who would complain about it. We'd have to consider if we'd lose more players than we gain. (b) provides no dedicated spots for GV enthusiasts, but we get rid of the headaches, it is proven to work, and it results in a lot more GV's on the battlefield. (c) sort of works in that there are GV enthusiasts who enjoyed Red Storm, but of course there is a group that did not. We'd have to consider whether or not there are enough GV'ers who are fine with it, and we'd have to realize that there would be at least some GV'ers who wouldn't play in it.
That's how I see it currently -- my own view, not necessarily that of anyone else. We'll all continue to ponder and discuss, as it's not something we need to decide immediately.
I know that everyone here is giving their opinions to have better scenarios. Our difficulty is just that, like with movies and food, not everyone agrees on what is best. So, we try to pick a good balance, and we occasionally try different things in scenarios to see how it goes.
Maybe, just maybe, we are sort of talking around two different points.
My point is -
If the rules say an aircraft is not allowed to “attack” or “destroy” a target (like a tank), then it seems logical and easier to avoid ‘accidents, by telling them not to target a tank with the intention of shooting or dropping a bomb near it. Just from a historical/realism perspective, an aircraft wouldn’t be wasting valuable ordinance that could kill a tank just to “mark” it.
Plus from a referee point of view, if a tanker complains that he was killed by an ‘illegal’ aircraft, it is quickly clear whether it was a legal or non-legal aircraft that killed him. If it was a non-legal aircraft, then a check to see if said destroyed tank was within reasonable bomb blast distance of a valid target such as a hangar would determine it as a legal drop (even if the pilot’s target WAS the tank, who could tell). But if it’s determined the tank was outside the bomb blast of a near miss on a building or hangar, regardless of intended target, then that would incur a penalty, either for targeting the tank or being such a bad and inaccurate hangar bomber. Seems only fair that the 'bad luck' penalty should work both ways: tanker too close to building target gets destroyed, or hangar bomber not targeting tank but missing hangar by more than 50-100 ft. destroys tank. Tanker gets destroyed and penalized in either case, so bad bomber should get penalized points in second case.
By allowing non-legal aircraft (meaning can’t attack tanks) to drop supposedly ‘near’ a tank or fire guns ‘close’ to him to mark him, opens up more opportunity for accidental infractions as most players in this game probably have a hit percentage of what they aim at of less that 25%. He’s gonna want to hit close enough so his GV buddies can get an accurate fix, but not close enough to hurt the tank and get penalized. Just encourages a bad situational choice on the pilot’s part.
If he drops too close to the tank to damage or kill, how do you know he wasn’t trying to kill the tank illegally in the first place? And if he does damage or kill it while trying to only mark it, why should such an opportunity even occur and force the tanker to spend 5 min. in the Tower, and maybe unnecessarily ruin a good defense or a fair GV to GV kill by that tank? How do you fairly repair that mistake? Why would you even open up the possibility and encourage planes to shoot and drop near a target they’re not allowed to imped in anyway (damage/kill) and risk such an ‘accidental’ outcome. Isn’t smarter and easier all round to say don’t “target” a tank for bombs or gunfire in any way if you’re not allow to kill it?
-
My point is -
If the rules say an aircraft is not allowed to “attack” or “destroy” a target (like a tank), then it seems logical and easier to avoid ‘accidents, by telling them not to target a tank with the intention of shooting or dropping a bomb near it.
Then you are talking about (1) rules interpretation and (2) following rules as your primary issues.
As for rules interpretation, whether the rules say "don't cause damage to or drop near" or say "don't cause damage to, but other than that, you aren't restricted", it is clear. That fixes the clarity issue either way.
As for the second part, following the rules, you believe that "don't drop bombs near" would increase compliance (i.e., reduce accidents). Yep, it might reduce accidents, but it won't make them zero -- and even if they were zero, you still have people who think there was a violation that needs to be looked into. Then, if you have "can't drop a bomb or shoot near a GV", the CM's will be needing to look through films (takes *enormous* time to coordinate the gathering and reviewing of films), make subjective judgements on whether some event was near or not, get screamed at by players who feel that they were "bombed near" but no longer have films, get screamed at by players who think a hit was near when you think it wasn't ("I measured 210 yards." "Well, I measured 196 yards, and that's inside the radius!!!!") and so on. Whatever rules you have, you need to plan on looking into them and making judgements on events that fall right on the decision point -- and the headache of doing that follows approximately the following formula: headache = (10,000 * subjectiveness)^300. (Math joke -- how often do you see those, eh?)
-
You know what? Some folks will NEVER fly FSO.. Nor will they ever be allowed to. They belong in the MA doing mindless things.
SOME folks just shouldn't be in scenarios either.... If you think GVs should be in a vacuum you're probably one of them.
-
Brooke,
Save yourself the grief and get rid of GV's all together....the amount of rules some of them are asking for are borderline ludicrous.
:rolleyes:
Strip
-
Brooke,
Save yourself the grief and get rid of GV's all together....the amount of rules some of them are asking for are borderline ludicrous.
:rolleyes:
Strip
WHAT HE SAID
It seems to be not worth the hassle, if they want to complain just can the gv's. They can all go back to the MA and whine about bomb****s.
p.s. <--- shameless bomb****
-
It it my understanding that scenarios are recreations of important battles during ww2. Not bombing gv's would make it unrealistic. It happened. I think in order to have tanks in a scenario you would have to have a gv scenario. The main force would be tanks, but there would also be support aircraft to take out tanks and planes to protect the tanks. If one side doesn't coordinate a good cap to protect their tanks, and to support the strike force that side will suffer.
-
Honestly, I haven't had the time to fully digest this thread... That said, I was somewhat involved in the planning/strategy side of some FSO battles... I agree 100% that GV battles need to be started from greater distances. I would fully support FSO setups that required GV'ers to travel 30+ minutes before first contact.
Putting the GV'ers too close together completely removes strategy and tactics from the equation. Give the GV guys plenty of time to form up and manuever, don't hamstring them with super tight timelines. Screw the second "air life" in FSO scenarios, give the GV'ers a real chance at a real ground battle.
-
Unless you cherry picked certain spawns you would likely need to rework each terrain.....
Strip
-
I agree 100% that GV battles need to be started from greater distances. I would fully support FSO setups that required GV'ers to travel 30+ minutes before first contact.
Putting the GV'ers too close together completely removes strategy and tactics from the equation. Give the GV guys plenty of time to form up and manuever, don't hamstring them with super tight timelines.
Exactly, the GV's need to travel to the battle areas. This would change and add a lot to scenerios for GVs.
-
A film clip of the actual (and I believe only) "marking" of a tank is there for review. From my perspective there are a couple of relevant points.
1) there was no intent to use bombs as "markers", the primary targets were the hangers which were already down. The secondary targets were flaks and none were present.
2) Cobia had already determined that our tactics if engaged were to pickle our externals but retain internal ords. Figuring this gave us some additional margin of survivability without completely comprimising
our air to ground capability.
So...this ongoing argument that it was somehow "unrealistic" is flat out wrong given that I was precluded from dropping my ords on enemy tanks (which obviously was unrealistic). The traffic on range vox makes it clear that enemy planes are already attacking the fighter cap. The drop is clearly coordinated with the GV's on the hill and the tiger was not apparent to them until the drop occurred. given the restrictions in place I used the eggs in the only practical way that might have a tangible benefit to my side...given the option to drop them on the tank I can assure you they would have been a bit closer. The goal of a scenario is to give each player the opportunity to participate and have a positive impact on the outcome. Highly artificial rules of engagement restrict that and make it tougher for those impacted. From my perspective I'm still at low level with eggs and with enemy air but I can't engage what should be valid targets...meanwhile everything can and will engage me. Given that my sortie survivability is statistically marginal under those circumstances and the rules give me two lives to the GV's 4...plus my "kill" of a GV isn't really one and I'm at a lose in understanding the issue here. Worst case for the GV is he needs to wait to re spawn while for me the frame might well be over.
-
What if, oh, I don't know, somebody, were to build a terrain for GV-only mini scenarios that could take place in the months in-between the regular scenarios (air dominated)? The terrain would be regular size 512x512 miles, with different areas of the map representing different climates/environments, such as desert, winter, ect. Kind of a generic GV-battle-only terrain for the CMs to work with to create GV scenarios that take place just about anywhere they can think of. Open plains, woodlands, small towns, our new large cities coming, fights for villages, bridges, factory areas, etc. Basically a terrain that is specifically designed just for ground wars, with the layout taylored to just that. I wonder who would be willing to make something like that?(http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/6444/scratchchin.gif) (http://img121.imageshack.us/i/scratchchin.gif/)
Picture it in your heads & then give your thoughts.
(http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/4490/91379867.jpg) (http://img262.imageshack.us/i/91379867.jpg/)
-
Personally I think a GV oriented scenario ought to have a reinforced company for each side of vehicles, 2 flights of fighters and a flight of tank hunters.
No rules regarding air-ground, ground-air fighting.
Very basic break-down would be as follows:
Ground commander's vehicle
XO's vehicle
FAO's vehicle
1st, 2nd, and 3rd tank platoons.
Air defense platoon
Supply section.
Reconnaissance platoon.
High performance fighter aircraft flight.
Endurance/recon aircraft flight.
Close Air Support flight.
That gives you provision for about 40 players on each side, which can be a fairly nice little brawl.
A quick and easy setup if you will that could be run as a test-bed to see if a far more GV oriented scenario would be popular enough to merit a larger force.
This would also give you the opportunity to test to see just what effect a lower ratio of vehicles -> planes does, as well as give ground commanders a tactical consideration of sacrificing tanks to knock out enemy ADA before calling in the tank busters.
I'm probably just daydreaming over here of putting together something that operates even 1/10th like an actual mechanized unit, but the air war did evolve out of supporting the ground war.
Maybe if we put the aircraft into that role and limit their numbers a little more it would make them vastly more important.
If you can neutralize the ADA and retain your air cover, even if you're out of heavy ordnance 2 or 3 aircraft providing real-time data to the ground and tossing tracers towards enemy tanks could very well turn the tide of a battle.
I'd give two lives at 15 minute death-timers to the air crews, who in the meantime could be running as the supply section or such.
Add in a significant travel time for the ground forces to open up the intelligence battle and I think it'd be a lot more in-depth than the previous GV scenarios.
I'm thinking of DGS here where the scouts were perhaps the most important part of the German force. Finding, reporting, and sticking with the American bombers allowed the German side to orient their strike force properly for the best punch possible.
Getting that kind of turn-out for a GV oriented scenario would be awesome, to have 2 or more companies operating independently and/or under the direction of a Bn commander.
But I think if we want to make this really successful we need to start out smaller and organise at least one smaller scale test-scenario to work out the kinks for organizing the ground fight. Especially in regards to what terrain to use, how to spawn in, how to decide objectives, what vehicles, etc. etc. etc.
-
The real issues you have specific to a "GV" scenario is that you have no artillery, infantry or anti-tank weaponry. This greatly limits things from realism perspective and contributes to the already severely misguided understanding of the "tankers" in AH. Your reinforced tank company would actually be operating on a very narrow front, far less then the terrain your proposing. What would be interesting is a recreation of the action around St Vith. As an example the firefly is a good approximation for the M-36 so you could recreate the actions of the 814th TD Battalion both as "task force Jones" and earlier vs the Fuhrer Begleit Brigade near Hunningen. This would allow a very realistic portrayal of multiple meeting engagements between relatively small units in a fluid environment with historically correct (with substitutions obviously) opponents.
-
How about a scenario were gvs have to take the "same" town or base with in a scenario. Planes and bombers have other objectives. Did they ever change the draw limit.... if you get too many gvs in one spot its not going to work anyway.