Aces High Bulletin Board
Special Events Forums => Scenario General => Topic started by: Tank-Ace on May 13, 2012, 11:29:15 AM
-
Well, I think we could do a Kursk event next. Granted we would have to use a different map for the event, but I think the time has come.
We have a decent line-up for aircraft, and GV's, and most importatnly, with the arival of the Ju-87G-2, both sides will have a good ground-attack aircraft available.
One of the benefits of doing Kursk is that its one of the few setups we can run where the Germans are on the strategic offensive. Really after that point, the Germans were at best using agressive defense. Even the Balaton offensive wasn't really strategic in nature, it didn't put the initiative back in the German's hands.
It seems like the GV setup is going to be hardest, since we don't have AT guns, mines, and all the other defenses the Soviets had on their side. IMO, for GV's, we would give the Germans: Panzer IV F2/H at a 2:1 ratio, one group of Tiger I's, and a group of Panther G's, in substitute for the Panther Ausf. D.
Soviets would get the T-34/76 and the T-34/85 in place of the Su-85 and their AT guns. Numerical advantage would obviously be given to the Soviets in this case.
-
Next event is already on the books, and will be announced soon.
One thing we don't do though, is plan an event around a plane that isn't out yet. It won't be Kursk.
-
Most likely the next event will center around a What If Scenario. What if Germany actually invaded England? Allied CV's and land based bombers from Iceland pounding the Nazi occupied landscape.
Since we don't have Iceleand, we'll have to use CV's as bomber bases. Lancasters, B-17's, and B-24's with formations launching en masse from blue water operations. We'll call it "Her Majesty's Raid".
-
Most likely the next event will center around a What If Scenario. What if Germany actually invaded England? Allied CV's and land based bombers from Iceland pounding the Nazi occupied landscape.
Since we don't have Iceleand, we'll have to use CV's as bomber bases. Lancasters, B-17's, and B-24's with formations launching en masse from blue water operations. We'll call it "Her Majesty's Raid".
(http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/images/smilies/facepalm.gif)
-
Before I design another ground war, in fact before we run another ground war I will require 30 written pledges of participation per side promising their 401ks, first born, and the removal of their pinky fingers if they fail to sign up and attend.
Btw, the new black sea map has an area designed specificity for a recreation of Kursk.
I would love to do more GV events, I highly enjoyed DoB in tanks, but we need GVers to commit to participate.. not force people who want to fly to GV.
Cheers,
Fencer
-
I'm comming back in the summer, I've got a job already lined up, I start in July. I can make scenarios, I'll GL the Panthers if you need an expirienced commander, and I could start badgering GV'ers in the MA to join.
If not the next one, at least consider it for the Fall scenario.
-
(http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/images/smilies/facepalm.gif)
First official supporter. :aok In the words of Jean-luc Picard, "Make it so."
Now, back to your reguarly scheduled Scenario programming.
-
I would love to do more GV events, I highly enjoyed DoB in tanks, but we need GVers to commit to participate.. not force people who want to fly to GV.
This. :aok
-
Keep in mind that M3s with the gun on it can act as stationary AT guns.... About as defenseless as them. Just set them up ahead of time and don't let them move around.
-
I heard that the next scenario is a "what if" as follows:
-- Germany and USSR remained together on axis.
-- Thus US and UK weren't able to gain foothold in Europe and had to focus on desperate defense of UK.
-- Meanwhile, Japan as member of axis settled its differences with USSR and, backed by USSR industry, kept winning in the Pacific.
So, in the scenario, it is a 1945 battle for Seattle. The Japanese have taken Hawaii, the Aleutians, and pushed down the west coast. Land-based Yaks, La's, and Ki-67's, and Sea Nikis and Sea Ki-84's on Japanese CV's off the Washington coast battle late-war US iron and US CV's.
:P
-
The bait.... she is stinky, no? </random French accent>
-
Actually, I think "Battle for Seattle" would a great fun! But, no, it isn't the next scenario.
-
Actually, I think "Battle for Seattle" would a great fun! But, no, it isn't the next scenario.
Why would anyone fight to keep Seattle?
-
Why would anyone fight to keep Seattle?
In the alternate history of my imagining, it would be to make sure Hoosiers are kept out. :P
-
Starbucks and Microsoft have brainwashed us all to want to keep it :)
-
fnord
-
Hmmm... Do we have the terrain? ;)
-
Hmmm... Do we have the terrain? ;)
Not exactly, but I figure that any number of current terrains could be pressed into service for it -- Tunisia, etc., perhaps.
-
Keep in mind that M3s with the gun on it can act as stationary AT guns.... About as defenseless as them. Just set them up ahead of time and don't let them move around.
My only issue with this is that the M3 gun is less powerfull than some of the soviet AT weapons used at Kursk, and since AT guns could move (just not fire on the move), we should allow them to relocate if they're being over run. In that case, we open the door to 65mph flank attacks by the Soviets.
-
Not exactly, but I figure that any number of current terrains could be pressed into service for it -- Tunisia, etc., perhaps.
It's been a while since we had a good desert campaign. :aok
I have the PERFECT skin. Leopard print is back! :D
-
Hmmm... Do we have the terrain? ;)
I trys and trys to teach them the order for proper planning...
-
Leopard print is back! Big Grin
No, it isn't, now please step away from the unitard....
-
You guys ruin everything! I swear the Battle for Seattle was my next FSO...
-
In the alternate history of my imagining, it would be to make sure Hoosiers are kept out. :P
:salute (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Animated-Flag-Indiana.gif)
-
Before I design another ground war, in fact before we run another ground war I will require 30 written pledges of participation per side promising their 401ks, first born, and the removal of their pinky fingers if they fail to sign up and attend.
Btw, the new black sea map has an area designed specificity for a recreation of Kursk.
I would love to do more GV events, I highly enjoyed DoB in tanks, but we need GVers to commit to participate.. not force people who want to fly to GV.
Cheers,
Fencer
Good luck with that. Unless you have a ground war centered around a spawn camp I doubt the "GVers" would show.
Spawn shoot die, spawn shoot die...out of lives, frame over,
-
Good luck with that. Unless you have a ground war centered around a spawn camp I doubt the "GVers" would show.
Spawn shoot die, spawn shoot die...out of lives, frame over,
That was basically what we just did. GVer's, contrary to popular belief, like tactics. When you have one or two points into a single target, people know where you are going, so it will eventually turn into a slug fest. If there were multiple targets with varying entry routes and tactics played a much much larger part, you'll see many GVers want to participate.
The idea wasn't bad, it was the numbers when broken down and the forced participation in GV's that gave this time a sour taste. But there in lies the problem... Unless there are enough people, we can never try to achieve the Golden Age of GV's in Scenarios.
-
Good luck with that. Unless you have a ground war centered around a spawn camp I doubt the "GVers" would show.
Spawn shoot die, spawn shoot die...out of lives, frame over,
Says the guy who has a total of 2 GV kills for the past 5 tours.
-
Kursk again, already? I'm STILL waiting for another BoB.... once upon a time, it used to be run every year or two.
-
BoB will be happily be reran once we get the He111.
-
Says the guy who has a total of 2 GV kills for the past 5 tours.
With the crickets chirping from the GV slots in the last scenario, I'd be hard pressed to believe you could get enough for it to matter. A dedicated GV war was involved and I think we had 4 total folks sign up for GVs and ended up having the fliers have to drive tanks even if they didn't care to.
Very noble of you to volunteer for leading Panthers :)
Get yourself a bunch of Sherman 75 drivers and volunteer for that instead :aok
-
With the crickets chirping from the GV slots in the last scenario, I'd be hard pressed to believe you could get enough for it to matter. A dedicated GV war was involved and I think we had 4 total folks sign up for GVs and ended up having the fliers have to drive tanks even if they didn't care to.
Very noble of you to volunteer for leading Panthers :)
Get yourself a bunch of Sherman 75 drivers and volunteer for that instead :aok
From what I gather, nobody did much recruiting in the MA's. Hell, when I brought secnarious up over country channel once, a lot of people asked what a scenario was.
As to the other, I'm an expirienced GV'er, I know tactics, I'm good at coordinating with other groups. Really, you want your best people in the best tanks, since they'll get the most out of them.
Say an expirienced player will get 60% more out of his vehicle than an inexpirienced one. The Panther is worth immeasurably more than a Panzer IV in combat, and if you put someone expirienced in one, his value is also immeasurably more than if you had put him in a Panzer IV.
Not that I would reject the M4/Panzer IV command if there was someone more expirienced to take the Panthers, but it would make sense to take command of the Panthers if we're strapped for expirienced GV'ers.
-
Other than Stalin's Fourth (which is basically a GV scenario), WSDG had the least complaining and the most compliments of any GV action in a scenario. I think that GV action in a scenario is a lot of fun, and I think that the method of implementation in WSDG was almost optimal. The only change I would make is that we do have dedicated GV spots, but be realistic about it -- probably only about 5 per side -- and every pilot gets lives in GV's, but only after his aircraft lives are used up. That way, no pilot is pressed into service in a GV at all. This does have problems in that one side can end up having a lot more GV's than the other if they lose a lot of pilots more quickly, but that is the least of all disadvantages, I think. You can counter it by having the GV element of the scenario either be scored separately, or not count for as much in scoring as the air portion.
-
I would GV in an event, but honestly, the event starts at 2 am and ends 5 am as it is - unless the times are shifted 3/4 hours earlier - there is no way I can go further then 5 am. . . I am already screwing my weekends (when combined with the FSO that is a 4 - 5 am sat).
-
GVs cannot operate in isolation. They operate at the whim of their air support. If they own the skies, their GVs roam free.
Remember where the GVers threatened to walk off because they were being killed, with any kind of airplane within 10km of them? Showed how petty and pathetic the GV whining can be, simply because they were "spotted" by aircraft overhead, so that that aircraft's ground forces could attack hidden tankers.
The plain of the matter is that you can't have GVs free from action/reaction of the overall arena at large. The air war will play a large part in the ground war. If you force them into being isolated with arbitrary rules you simply nullify and ignore valid results in the air to justify meaningless GV results.
Meaningless because none of them may have ever happened that same way if they had to interact with air power in the region at the time.
I have plenty of thoughts on the matter regarding balancing, points integration, and so forth, but none of it involves (nor should it) keeping the GVs separate from the goings-on of the rest of the SEA during the same frame.
-
GVs cannot operate in isolation. They operate at the whim of their air support. If they own the skies, their GVs roam free.
Remember where the GVers threatened to walk off because they were being killed, with any kind of airplane within 10km of them? Showed how petty and pathetic the GV whining can be, simply because they were "spotted" by aircraft overhead, so that that aircraft's ground forces could attack hidden tankers.
The plain of the matter is that you can't have GVs free from action/reaction of the overall arena at large. The air war will play a large part in the ground war. If you force them into being isolated with arbitrary rules you simply nullify and ignore valid results in the air to justify meaningless GV results.
Meaningless because none of them may have ever happened that same way if they had to interact with air power in the region at the time.
I have plenty of thoughts on the matter regarding balancing, points integration, and so forth, but none of it involves (nor should it) keeping the GVs separate from the goings-on of the rest of the SEA during the same frame.
My only issue is that the Gv'ers don't have the capacity to affect the aircraft that they did in real life, and if anything, the ablity of aircraft to affect the GV'ers is slightly exagerated.
In real life if you pushed forward and brought an airfield into artillery range, they had to relocate. In real life, if your unit came under air attack, you headed for thick tree cover and were safe from everything save carpet bombing. Or you hid amongst already knocked out vehicles. In real life, if your forces advanced significantly, your airforce could move up closer to the front as well. In real life, aircraft NEVER had icons to locate vehicles.
Honestly, special events would be the best place to disable GV icons for aircraft. Why? Because they can identify enemy from friendly units visually.
-
My only issue is that the Gv'ers don't have the capacity to affect the aircraft that they did in real life, and if anything, the ablity of aircraft to affect the GV'ers is slightly exagerated.
In real life if you pushed forward and brought an airfield into artillery range, they had to relocate. In real life, if your unit came under air attack, you headed for thick tree cover and were safe from everything save carpet bombing. Or you hid amongst already knocked out vehicles. In real life, if your forces advanced significantly, your airforce could move up closer to the front as well. In real life, aircraft NEVER had icons to locate vehicles.
Honestly, special events would be the best place to disable GV icons for aircraft. Why? Because they can identify enemy from friendly units visually.
Tell that to my guy who took a Panther 75 shell right into his 38. And tell that to the 14 fighter bombers Waystin shot down in his Wirble during that epic fight over the town.
-
That fight was EPIC.
Waystin really kicked butt that day.
-
Tell that to my guy who took a Panther 75 shell right into his 38. And tell that to the 14 fighter bombers Waystin shot down in his Wirble during that epic fight over the town.
Operator error. :)
-
Operator error. :)
The funny part of it all is I'm afraid Tank-Ace is trying to connect the MA world to an event. As one who was flying a fighter bomber that frame, we weren't just looking for tanks. We had broken cloud down to the deck. Watched a 262 lawndart because of those as he was trying to shoot Allied fighter bombers. With the short icon range for planes too, you really had to have your head on the swivel to keep an eye out for higher LW fighters that were covering the tankers. With all that if you spotted a tank, you'd lose it in all the chaos going on really fast as you tried to get in position for a decent drop etc.
To suggest the edge was with the planes is just silly :)
When Waystin had his run of 14 I never saw him. Myself and 2 other 38s were fighting D9s on the deck. I'd managed to get 2 D9s and was finally in a position that I 'might' be able to get some speed up and possibly survive when 'bam!', down I went to Wirble fire as did the 38 that was tailing me.
-
I'll also attest to the icons working well as they were. From the one A2G sortie I got, it was very difficult keeping track of advancing GVs and we had complete air superiority. The fact that a 262 flew less than 2,000 yards past our 8 M3s parked in the same set of trees, tipped a wing directly at us, but never saw us was a great testament to that.
And, unlike how Krusty loves to ignore, we didn't have bombers "spotting" vehicles with 500lb bombs this time. :D The stipulations, although a tiny bit complicated, worked well; if you weren't a level bomber and you were allowed to carry eggs, you could knock over a GV. That's fine with me. Especially since it played into the strategy of deciding how many eggs went on tanks versus town buildings.
Why would anyone fight to keep Seattle?
But if we lost Seattle, how would White Base hide from the Zeon in the King Dome?
...wait
-
Tell that to my guy who took a Panther 75 shell right into his 38. And tell that to the 14 fighter bombers Waystin shot down in his Wirble during that epic fight over the town.
Yep, blame it on me. I single-handedly made sure that GV's will never be used in a scenario again. :D
In all seriousness though, your answer is correct in it's assessment. :aok Not only from the perspective of the GV'er affecting aircraft in the scenario, but factor in how difficult it was to attack the Allied armor from the air with Dora's. We did it, but it was not a cake walk. Hard to spot the vehicles, which makes harder lines up for egg drops. Not to mention dancing with pony's and 38's while you are trying to attack the GVs. :uhoh
-
The funny part of it all is I'm afraid Tank-Ace is trying to connect the MA world to an event. As one who was flying a fighter bomber that frame, we weren't just looking for tanks. We had broken cloud down to the deck. Watched a 262 lawndart because of those as he was trying to shoot Allied fighter bombers. With the short icon range for planes too, you really had to have your head on the swivel to keep an eye out for higher LW fighters that were covering the tankers. With all that if you spotted a tank, you'd lose it in all the chaos going on really fast as you tried to get in position for a decent drop etc.
To suggest the edge was with the planes is just silly :)
I'm not suggesting the edge is always with the planes. I'm only suggesting that when at a state of air-denial, as opposed to air-equality, the aircraft have an exagerated ablity to locate and destroy tanks. Knocked out tanks don't stay on the battlefield to provide camoflauge for an operational tank. And even if they did, you still have your 21st century IFF systems to tell which are still active whenever you close to within 600yds or when a Storch is present.
-
I'm not suggesting the edge is always with the planes. I'm only suggesting that when at a state of air-denial, as opposed to air-equality, the aircraft have an exagerated ablity to locate and destroy tanks. Knocked out tanks don't stay on the battlefield to provide camoflauge for an operational tank. And even if they did, you still have your 21st century IFF systems to tell which are still active whenever you close to within 600yds or when a Storch is present.
And I'm saying based on our most recent GV vs Air experience in a scenario setting, that just isn't true.
-
I was in a Dora at teh end of the last frame.....
I had a bomb. I flew around looking for an M4 that was in the area, I could not find it.
I am not a level bomber, I drop almost verticle. With that, and the new ICON range and the snow on the trees and white camo on that M4. Plus roaming P-38's and Temests. I hit nothing with bombs. I went back and looked at the film and I was 500 yards from him and he was hiding under a tree with white camo.
Did TankAce participate in the WSDG?
Seems like he did not as the things we are talking about did not happen. I am not a GV'r, even in the MA and had no desire to do so in WSDG, even though my Unit was given Panthers. I preffered to stay in my Dora.
The problem that i heard most was that all the guys begging for a GV scenario DID NOT SHOW UP for it! Why are the CM's going to spend all that time setting up a scenario, and the numbers SUCK.
They are never going to make eveyone happy, that is a fact!
SO best set it up to get the most participation, and that goes for time slot as well.
I would suggest that if you want a particular set up, join the CM team and BUILD it! If not, just show up and have fun with what you get........ I want to fly JG/26, so I do, even if the plane they use is not what I want.
Not trying to stir it up, this is my 100th post YAY :lol
-
My only issue is that the Gv'ers don't have the capacity to affect the aircraft that they did in real life, and if anything, the ablity of aircraft to affect the GV'ers is slightly exagerated.
In real life if you pushed forward and brought an airfield into artillery range, they had to relocate. In real life, if your unit came under air attack, you headed for thick tree cover and were safe from everything save carpet bombing. Or you hid amongst already knocked out vehicles. In real life, if your forces advanced significantly, your airforce could move up closer to the front as well. In real life, aircraft NEVER had icons to locate vehicles.
Honestly, special events would be the best place to disable GV icons for aircraft. Why? Because they can identify enemy from friendly units visually.
This is a game.
-
I think the CM's should incorporate GV's into most if not all scenarios but not make them integral to the scenario. Here's what I mean; allow a selection of GV's on both sides then throw out a carrat. Say attack this or that allied or axis strat and your country gets extra objects destoyed points. Defend said factory and your country might get extra kills and deny the extra objects destroyed. Maybe allow flaks at the airfields but don't make any of it mandatory.
So if there's one factory on each side designated for GV's and flaks are available at airfields let people decide if they want to GV or not, if they want to coordinate or not and if they want to attack or defend. As with the last scenario add some GV lives after the plane lives are lost.
This way you might start to get more GVers involved in scenarios and over time things could be tightened up.
-
Heres my issue with this; if aircraft are allowed to attack GV's, GV's should have some real effect on the outcome of the scenario.
I don't care if its as simple as moving the active airfrields closer to the strat targets if the GV'ers take ground, or moving them further away if the GV'ers lose ground. But if you say A/C can attack GV's, but then tell the GV's they're going to have limited impact on the scenario, they'll fell like they're just being put up as additional targets for the flyboys.
-
Heres my issue with this; if aircraft are allowed to attack GV's, GV's should have some real effect on the outcome of the scenario.
I don't care if its as simple as moving the active airfrields closer to the strat targets if the GV'ers take ground, or moving them further away if the GV'ers lose ground. But if you say A/C can attack GV's, but then tell the GV's they're going to have limited impact on the scenario, they'll fell like they're just being put up as additional targets for the flyboys.
And again you are speaking having not participated in the last scenario where the tankers had an effect on the outcome. At this point I'm thinking you and Krusty need to get together and swap complaints. He's complaining about the next one and you are telling us what we should do when we just did it in the last scenario.
-
And again you are speaking having not participated in the last scenario where the tankers had an effect on the outcome. At this point I'm thinking you and Krusty need to get together and swap complaints. He's complaining about the next one and you are telling us what we should do when we just did it in the last scenario.
I'm not saying they didn't have an effect on the outcome of last scenario, and I've never said that. As you said, I didn't participate. However, I AM expressing a concern about what I can see happening next secnario with GV's in it.
I really don't want to see GV'ers shoved into one corner of the map and I don't want them stuck in the middle of things, with multiple bomb-toting squadrons being told "yeah, go ahead. do whatever you like down there. Yeah its fine, you can load up the 1000lbers if you want".
What I would really like is to see advance of ground forces carry over throughout the scenario. If my side's ground forces advances 100 miles in frames 1 and 2, then I expect the enemy to be 100 miles back of their origional possitions in frame 3. If my group puts an enemy airfield under artillery fire, I expect to see that base made inactive in the next frame.
Ideally, GV's would be pivitol in the outcome if they're ignored by the flyers. If we capture all of your airfields in the south, then you're going to have some tough sledding next frame, when nobody is based close to the targets in the south. But if you guys use airsupport effectivly, and push us back 50 miles, then we'll have to move like hell to make up lost time in the next frame.
-
I'm not saying they didn't have an effect on the outcome of last scenario, and I've never said that. As you said, I didn't participate. However, I AM expressing a concern about what I can see happening next secnario with GV's in it.
I really don't want to see GV'ers shoved into one corner of the map and I don't want them stuck in the middle of things, with multiple bomb-toting squadrons being told "yeah, go ahead. do whatever you like down there. Yeah its fine, you can load up the 1000lbers if you want".
What I would really like is to see advance of ground forces carry over throughout the scenario. If my side's ground forces advances 100 miles in frames 1 and 2, then I expect the enemy to be 100 miles back of their origional possitions in frame 3. If my group puts an enemy airfield under artillery fire, I expect to see that base made inactive in the next frame.
Ideally, GV's would be pivitol in the outcome if they're ignored by the flyers. If we capture all of your airfields in the south, then you're going to have some tough sledding next frame, when nobody is based close to the targets in the south. But if you guys use airsupport effectivly, and push us back 50 miles, then we'll have to move like hell to make up lost time in the next frame.
LOL You aren't listening very well. We get it. The previous scenario was proof of that. What was lacking was dedicated GV guys. You do understand who designs these things right? Fencer, ROC, Brooke, Soulyss and myself. I can't even begin to tell you the time that Fencer in particular put into the GV portion of that scenario, and how much time was spent trying to make sure it worked. What we can't control is if players decide to sign up and play.
What I'm struggling with here is you are anticipating what we are going to do, when you really have no clue :)
-
It was at least a good 20 minutes.
-
No, Guppy, you don't understand. I'm expressing a concern that, as a result of low participation, you guys will decide to shove the GV's onto the back burner, or scrap the idea for the next few years, like with what happened after Red Storm.
Really, I'm essentially saying "hey, can we have GV's in the next one? And as a GV'er, it would really improve the immersion factor if X and Y were to happen. It might also help boost participation for reason Z"
And what I'm being told boils down to, "we had some issues with participation, so how playable we make the next event for GV's depends entirely on how many GV'ers you can promise me are going to sign up"
Sorry, but thats not exactly an encouraging thing to be hearing from the CM staff.
-
Really, I'm essentially saying "hey, can we have GV's in the next one? And as a GV'er, it would really improve the immersion factor if X and Y were to happen. It might also help boost participation for reason Z"
And what I'm being told boils down to, "we had some issues with participation, so how playable we make the next event for GV's depends entirely on how many GV'ers you can promise me are going to sign up"
That is the problem; people ask for scenarios with GVs but the sign ups are so mediocre they need to shift people from aircraft into tanks to make the scenario playable. How can they, or anyone else, get people to sign up and if they do, how can they make them show up?
I was forced into a GV last scenario because of the complete lack of participation by the GVing community. Have you seen me in a GV? I look like Ray Charles trying to aim and shoot with Parkinsons. You don't want to hear this, but if I was in charge, I would of canceled last scenario and re-wrote it removing GVs altogether. If the GV community doesn't have any interest, why give them what they want at the penalty of everyone else?
Sorry, but thats not exactly an encouraging thing to be hearing from the CM staff.
Ok, If you can get 30 guys to all agree that they will attend every frame of a scenario (barring a natural disaster or some calamity in their family), and populate both sides for a ground war, I guarantee the CMs will take notice. Right now, the interest isn't there and those that are interested aren't reliable.
-
We offered to remove GVing completely but the COs wanted it left in.
-
"we had some issues with participation, so how playable we make the next event for GV's depends entirely on how many GV'ers you can promise me are going to sign up"
Yes. It's our time we put into these. If we put an event together and a core group doesn't bother to participate, it's going to take a solid commitment before we waste our time again.
If you can't figure that out, that is not our problem to solve.
-
Not a whole lot of GV'ers frequent the BBS it seems like. Things may have changed, but when I still played, recruitment in the MA's was virtually non-existent.
A message of the day announcment or something like that might be usefull in bumping up participation.
Now I've been out of the game for approaching a year now. I don't know whos still around, who still is interested in special events, whos become interested in them since, and I can't do recruitment.
When I get back, yeah, I'll help out where I can. Untill then, don't just assume that the BBS community is fully aware of registration issues. Ask for help with that type of thing, and I mean officially, not just the recruitment threads brooke and a few others do. People will be willing to help out.
-
Not a whole lot of GV'ers frequent the BBS it seems like. Things may have changed, but when I still played, recruitment in the MA's was virtually non-existent.
A message of the day announcment or something like that might be usefull in bumping up participation.
Now I've been out of the game for approaching a year now. I don't know whos still around, who still is interested in special events, whos become interested in them since, and I can't do recruitment.
When I get back, yeah, I'll help out where I can. Untill then, don't just assume that the BBS community is fully aware of registration issues. Ask for help with that type of thing, and I mean officially, not just the recruitment threads brooke and a few others do. People will be willing to help out.
First: KillrDan and myself I know for a fact did recruit actively. Any time I was in the MA I tried to get people to ask, commit, anything, but many blew it off. It's not the fault of any one person, or small group. It's the attitude of the community as a whole. Recruitment involves two sides, one person to ask, the other to commit and follow through. I can't hold a gun to people and make them follow through if they say "Yeah! I'll do it Seph!" Nor can you or anyone else. People say things mostly to be nice. Rarely do they break out of the gates with "F your scenario." Most of the time the response is: "I'll walk on." Well, the Allies got ALL the walkon's, some people were turned away because they didn't want to be allied and that was with an almost FULL registration (after the number change of course). Now we also need to make a very coordinated attack with GV's after we have all thse walkons AND we have to force people into GV's... Then we only get the people who are willing to do so and don't pull the plug or leave to mow the lawn...
If you think you can do better, I truly would like to see it work, but I think you're more or less taking an armchair quarterback's position with this. Hindsight is a wonderful 20/20
-
First: KillrDan and myself I know for a fact did recruit actively. Any time I was in the MA I tried to get people to ask, commit, anything, but many blew it off. It's not the fault of any one person, or small group. It's the attitude of the community as a whole. Recruitment involves two sides, one person to ask, the other to commit and follow through. I can't hold a gun to people and make them follow through if they say "Yeah! I'll do it Seph!" Nor can you or anyone else. People say things mostly to be nice. Rarely do they break out of the gates with "F your scenario." Most of the time the response is: "I'll walk on." Well, the Allies got ALL the walkon's, some people were turned away because they didn't want to be allied and that was with an almost FULL registration (after the number change of course). Now we also need to make a very coordinated attack with GV's after we have all thse walkons AND we have to force people into GV's... Then we only get the people who are willing to do so and don't pull the plug or leave to mow the lawn...
If you think you can do better, I truly would like to see it work, but I think you're more or less taking an armchair quarterback's position with this. Hindsight is a wonderful 20/20
Like I said, I've been out of the loop for close to a year. Everything I'm saying is based on what I read on the BBS, whats passed on to me by friends, and what the game was like before September 2011. If my information is out of date, or incorrect, then please let me know. Or better yet, tell me what its really like right now. But don't think I'm trying to lay blame to anyone here.
The CM staff has always done a great job in the events I took part in. While I feel there was some unclear goals, or issues with drawing the line between historical tactics on the one hand, and sportsmanship and playablity on the other hand in a couple of scenarios, I'm not saying they are going to botch the job on the next one. I'm simply letting them know, as a member of the community and a supporter of the scenarios, what my worries are and what I would enjoy seeing.