Aces High Bulletin Board
Special Events Forums => Friday Squad Operations => Topic started by: FiLtH on January 02, 2010, 09:50:37 PM
-
The last time I took part in an FSO our squad pulled a gv duty. I must say I didnt help much as Im next to worthless in them. Rather than assigning whole squads would it be possible to draft interested individuals from squads, and use members who enjoy, and are good at GVing take part. Maybe its too much work, buts its just a thought.
-
I am in the same boat as you Filth, not that I am a great stick in the air, but I would do better in the air than on the ground.
It is certainly possible, but that would be something the CiC and the Admin CM would have to coordinate. Last year we had some guys in GV's and others in the air over head offering cover and ground support.
-
Not a bad idea..... May want to limit it to squad splits like 50/50 so that it remains controlled vs. a everyman for himself kind of thing. I like the idea.
-
The only GV action I have seen in an FSO so far had us in tanks for the first 1/2 of the frame, and 190's in the second 1/2. I thought it worked out very well.
-
I was more keen on the notion of using them after your Aircraft death or landing.
That way if you did not want to be involved you could log.
-
The last time I took part in an FSO our squad pulled a gv duty. I must say I didn't help much as Im next to worthless in them. Rather than assigning whole squads would it be possible to draft interested individuals from squads, and use members who enjoy, and are good at GVing take part. Maybe its too much work, buts its just a thought.
I understand what you're suggesting, so don't take this the wrong way, but I'd agree as long as I, or my squad, could opt out of bomber duty. I'm playing devil's advocate here, obviously, but the bottom line is that, in my opinion, we need both pieces (fighters and bombers) to make a normal air-centric FSO successful. If we are to have GVs in FSO, we will need both aircraft and ground forces, and that means assigning some squads that may rather be doing something else to GVs. Ultimately, its a CIC decision, as he/she can look at the ride requests and try to match up squads as best he/she can, depending on the needs of the frame.
At the end of the day, I believe its best a question posed to the community: Do you or do you not want GVs integrated into FSO? If they are integrated, they have to be truly integrated, instead of merely a second act that no one truly cares the results of. For the most part, even though some of these ancillary uses of GVs and surface naval battles have been included with the score, they are structured in a manner that makes them a separate part, that does not "interfere" with any squads ability to don their goggles, and fly an aircraft. Mostly these have been attempts to determine the best way to utilize the unique characteristics that GVs bring to the event. We're obviously going to continue to learn, especially as we start seeing more maps like Easyscor's Ardennes and Hungary maps, that truly allow us, from a map geometry standpoint, to integrate GVs into the action.
Again, it should be up to the community. FSO will evolve over the years, as it has through the past. The question is whether this is a direction the majority of the player base wants to see. Personally, I like the idea of a truly integrated ground and air battle (or air and sea), so I hope we'll have the interest. If not, we can continue to refine what has proven to be a very successful formula from past FSOs.
:aok
-
At the end of the day, I believe its best a question posed to the community: Do you or do you not want GVs integrated into FSO?
A 'No' vote here.
-
No.
-
At the end of the day, I believe its best a question posed to the community: Do you or do you not want GVs integrated into FSO? If they are integrated, they have to be truly integrated, instead of merely a second act that no one truly cares the results of.
Good Points, But I don't think it has to be truly integrated as you suggest.
Go back and revisit something like last December and you guys can iron the wrinkles out and make it even better. :salute
-
...
At the end of the day, I believe its best a question posed to the community: Do you or do you not want GVs integrated into FSO?
...
No, thanks.
-
During WW2, both sides gained territory by capturing cities and bases. The best way to integrate GV's into the FSO formula is utilize the system HTC created for base taking in the MA's.
Set aside an area of operations for a nuetral base like a small airfield. Have spawn points for gv's to approach from opposite sides of the nuetral base. Aircraft will have to fly 2 to 3 sectors away giving time for GV's to have a chance to battle for a bit before the air cav rolls in. This will create the need for close air support with ground action to take the base. The one exception is that it's only a one life event. CIC's will have to assign squads to accomplis this.
Strike missions will be reduced to 3 or 4 targets for bombers and fighters. This all depending on maps to support them.
This would be make the action of a base capture very challenging since there's no re-upping by defenders and attackers. This would create a little hesitation for some players who normally charge full speed ahead in the MA's. Real tactical decision making would be needed to get the town down.
Due to the limited country GV sets, both sides should be allowed to use all GV's at their discretion.
My 2 cents. :salute
-
yes
-
If given a choice Id say no, but I know many like them so I wouldnt want to see them left wanting, Id just like to see THEM in them :)
-
I have enjoyed all aspects of FSO. Rolling Thunder, has done numerous missions in the air and on the ground. I like the idea of a more integrated air/ground mission that would make GVing in FSO more meaningful, but I also understand not everyone enjoys GVing as much as I and some of my squad-mates do. I think the best way is to ask squads to decide if that's what they want to request for ride choice.
CMs try to go with the requests, but every once in a while some one will get an assignment they would not have chosen first. This is no different from the current air campaign system. Some times a squad get's a plane they don't really like or even a side they would rather not have. That's part of the game and we have all been there done that.
I do think that it should be kept fairly small to reflect the number of pilots willing to GV once in a while and allow squads to split their pilots between ground and air tasks. Allowing a GV battle with air support will give all those guys dying to show of their jabo skills a chance to shine and GVers a chance to really be a part of FSO instead of an "also ran".
-
Yes
-
My issue with GVs is that they are not modeled to the same standard as the aircraft in AH. Otherwise they might be interesting to drive, but at the moment they are boring to me.
-
My issue with GVs is that they are not modeled to the same standard as the aircraft in AH. Otherwise they might be interesting to drive, but at the moment they are boring to me.
qft
The other issue that I have with GV's in FSO is that the historical choice is abysmal making anything close to a historical match up impossible in most cases.
-
qft
The other issue that I have with GV's in FSO is that the historical choice is abysmal making anything close to a historical match up impossible in most cases.
I would think that T-34/85 plus T-34/76 versus Tiger plus Panzer IV is pretty even...
-
I would think that T-34/85 plus T-34/76 versus Tiger plus Panzer IV is pretty even...
So we've got a barebones Eastern Front set...
Don't we usually have some kind of unholy mixture of The Tiger, T34/85, and Firefly almost no matter what is run?
I don't really follow the ground war unless I'm assigned to it so I apologize but here's an example of what I mean.
In Dawn of Battle PzKpfW IV's were sub'd in for Shermans with 75mm guns. That's the kind of stuff that kills the ground war for me. It's not about the gameplay, it's that if I wanted to shoot a Panzer in a Panzer I'd play in the MA.
-
So we've got a barebones Eastern Front set...
Don't we usually have some kind of unholy mixture of The Tiger, T34/85, and Firefly almost no matter what is run?
I don't really follow the ground war unless I'm assigned to it so I apologize but here's an example of what I mean.
In Dawn of Battle PzKpfW IV's were sub'd in for Shermans with 75mm guns. That's the kind of stuff that kills the ground war for me. It's not about the gameplay, it's that if I wanted to shoot a Panzer in a Panzer I'd play in the MA.
I'll make you a promise Bubi, I'll never make you go Panzer vs. Panzer in FSO. The only repetition I see being required right now is using M8s for Sd.Kfz 231s, and some issues with AA vehicles. My setup for this month was going to be the 4 tanks described above plus M8s, M16s, for both.
-
In Dawn of Battle PzKpfW IV's were sub'd in for Shermans with 75mm guns. That's the kind of stuff that kills the ground war for me. It's not about the gameplay, it's that if I wanted to shoot a Panzer in a Panzer I'd play in the MA.
The problem with volunteer events is that people won't staff certain tanks. FSO is a draft event, people have to staff them.
-
I'll make you a promise Bubi, I'll never make you go Panzer vs. Panzer in FSO. The only repetition I see being required right now is using M8s for Sd.Kfz 231s, and some issues with AA vehicles. My setup for this month was going to be the 4 tanks described above plus M8s, M16s, for both.
I only said that I don't enjoy that kind of thing... I understand that you guys do what you can with what you've got.
-
I only said that I don't enjoy that kind of thing... I understand that you guys do what you can with what you've got.
Well, some things might be worth waiting until we have the tools to do it properly. :aok
-
Well, some things might be worth waiting until we have the tools to do it properly. :aok
That's always my opinion... ;)