Aces High Bulletin Board
Special Events Forums => Scenario General => Topic started by: DoKGonZo on October 21, 2004, 12:04:25 PM
-
Since we're getting the T34 in "two weeks", how much interest would there be in a Eastern Front scenario where a tank battle was an integral part of the event design? It'd still primarily be an air campaign, but I can see where adding some ground elements could provide some context for the battle.
Would this get more people involved or would it scare away too many purists?
-
The "Afrika Corps" scenario (1st or 2nd AH scenario, I can't remember which) had a ground vehicle component.
-
Originally posted by Furious
The "Afrika Corps" scenario (1st or 2nd AH scenario, I can't remember which) had a ground vehicle component.
How did it work out?
-
Well, I wasn't in a tank, but I had fun.
banana or one of the other CM's of the time would know better than me if the combined arms thing worked out.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
How did it work out?
One of the best scenario's I've ever flown in. Of course, I did get to shoot down Cavey which I look back on fondly to this day.........and we've definately gotta wait until HT gives us the beaufighter before we try that one again.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/209_1081438631_swoop.gif)
-
Battle of the Bulge would be cool. Oh wait .... they modeled the T-34 instead! ;)
-
Originally posted by Swoop
One of the best scenario's I've ever flown in. Of course, I did get to shoot down Cavey which I look back on fondly to this day.........and we've definately gotta wait until HT gives us the beaufighter before we try that one again.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/209_1081438631_swoop.gif)
heh, what was the substitute again? The Tiffy? :D
-
Kurland and Niemen had large tanks aspects. Kurland more so. Eastern front events are not a real draw for allied players. Niemen was close to 100 slots unfilled or no shows.
Kurland was a fiasco in that it had little appeal to Ami allied players and as such turn out on the Allied side was poor. Seems La7s and Yak 9u's aren't the draw spits and p51s are.
Tank battles in Kurland were as large as 50 + with the Soviets trying to break through into Axis held Kurland. But with the allied low turn out it was hard to hold ground. In retrospect one of the problems was that the 'defensive v-bases' we designed were just too hard to take in terms of the amount of losses suffered by and an attacker. We used shore batteries to create overlapping artillery and the vehicle spawn points were to close allowing a rapid Axis response to any allied break through.
The problem with pre AH2 tank battles was the complete lack of ground cover. A group of vehicles with out sufficient air cover could be completely destroyed by just a few attackers. Troop carriers especially. I have used that tactic a lot when I Co'd a few event for the axis. I ordered our guys to ignore the 1st wave of gvs and focus on the m3s. You end up with an m3 rush. In events where troop carriers were limited this prevented the attackers from capturing ground. Where M3s were unlimited you just had wave after wave of m3s making suicide rushes.
Even in Afrika Korp tanks were easily spotted and killed.
With the new terrain cover it should improve GV survivability.
The problem here is that we have an all late war VVS plane set and an early war Soviet tank.
Until the plane set fills out some or the vehicle / tank set fills out it’s just a game of substitute roulette. You could call the event whatever but it will still be the same old match ups.
For example try earlier war Russia you get lend lease p40s Boston’s a20 hurri spit etc...
Try Tunisia or NA you get the same plane set just about.
There's no one scenario I can think of in AH that won’t require substitutes. Even AK had the Typhoon standing for the beaufighter.
-
I'm not envisioning the kind of MA mad tank rush at all.
The issue of having to design events based so much on what people will sign up for is a very, very bad sign though.
-
Kurland wasn't a MA tank rush because everything was limited. Neither was Niemen or AK or Okinawa. You had limited lives but troop carriers were different in each event.
Players got
1 Fighter life
1 Bomber/Jabo/Attacker life
1 GV life
The Axis side filled up but the allied side never pulled more the 2/3rds or so at peak.
Even less as the event wound down.
The allied attack began with a 5 min artillery barrage then general roll was called. Fighters swept ahead and attackers knocked out the defending ground units. They then over ran the base with heavy tanks and tanks pushing out the perimeter to seal off a counter attack from Axis Ground vehicles. The problem was that the ratio of 2 to 1 allies by design was more like 1.2 to 1. Since allies were attackers they suffered more losses so that in the air the lw could focus on the defensive cap then with just a few jabos attack the m3s as they moved up. In the mean time the rest of the Axis players massed in a counter attack using their own gvs and artillery and dislodged then destroyed the attackers.
The strategies on both sides were good and 'authentic'. Soviets using heavy tanks (tiger sub for IS2; to break through the German tanks; P4s). But with their reduced numbers and less then adequate performance in fighters (iirc 3 a5s shot down 12 la7s; 4 a-8s killed 15 or so la5s) the troop carriers had very little if any air cover. However, each frame was down to the wire.
We thought hard about re-doing the victory conditions to make allowances for the low allied turn out. However, we had the unique problem of the axis Co being robbed and his PC stolen. The rest of his staff had rl issues and couldn't make the frames. With no volunteer forth coming for the axis each flight leader had to step up decide how to approach each frame on his own.
This left us no one to negotiate changes with and we couldn't be sure that if we made changes without the input of an Axis staff that everyone on the axis side would be aware and understand the changes. So we held to the original victory conditions.
But back to the ground war... The rush I am talking about is troop rushes.
If you require base capture as a part of the victory conditions or as an indicator of captured territory then you need to decide how to do this. In AH1 the tanks were ignored in favor of hitting the troop carriers. They are just so much easier to kill. With this in mind if you make m3s 'unlimited' the result is an endless wave of m3s doing suicide rushes until they get the capture of until the frame ends.
With limited m3s a valid strategy would be too focus on taking out the m3s. Once they are gone there's no way for the attacker to take ground or fulfill the victory conditions.
In Niemen V hangars, bridges etc... were easy targets. So instead of combating the ground vehicles directly (Human vs. Human combat) it was much easier to fly about taking out the bridges and v hangars and as such there was no real 'ground war'. Same with Okinawa. If you wanted to stop a 30+ gv assault you just send in 5 guys heavy to take out the net hut.
In Kurland the v hangars were un-killable but v hangars along the front were under artillery fire and with just 1 gv life players dared not spawn there. The allies did lots of testing to get range on the front line v hangars and defensive guns and with their 5 min artillery barrage they were able to destroy most of the defensive guns along the front then concentrate on the V hangars taking out the axis players dumb enough to spawn there..
The Axis GVs needed to spawn beyond the range of the artillery and drive back to defend to front line bases or to counter attack. As I mentioned above I think the v spawns were a little to close and allowed the defenders to counter attack much quicker over stressing the limited allied player numbers.
Kurland was as complex a gv war as any event I have ever played in a flight game.
However, the eastern front just doesn't draw in Allied players. Also, you end up with a lot of plane and vehicle substitutions and instead of an event with a unique plane and vehicle match ups you are just reshuffling the terrain and name. It's still the same ole' match up. The T-34 helps this some but with only the La-5 from the same time frame as the T-34/76 mod 43 you can’t do much with it. Unless you pug it into some western allies vs. Axis.
Unfortunately most western European tank battles didn't involve a lot of Axis aircraft. At least not like in the med or on the eastern front.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
The T-34 helps this some but with only the La-5 from the same time frame as the T-34/76 mod 43 you can’t do much with it.
LA5's a great ride. I dunno where some players get their intimidation from regarding events. Another thing ... I bet there were still T-34/76's being used in `44 ...even `45. ;)
-
They were being used until the last day of the war. But if you have an event based on the '44 / '45 ground war then the T-34/76 vs. Tigers and P4s won't stand a chance and turn out maybe be low.
The La5FN is a great aircraft but you can't desing a whole event around it and a T-34/76. Again turn out will be low.
So you end up with late war east front set up with a mid war tank or an earlier war event with either a very limited plane set or a lot of substitutions and you are still stuck with a P-4 vs. T-34/76.
Unless the number ratio is large favoring the T-34; the T-34 wil be over matched by the P4.
You start with eastern front set ups being not that popular among average players. Turn out will be low. With a low turn out the T-34/76 facing an equal (or about equal) numbers of P4s will be a tough match up for the guys in T-34s.
As Kerry says 'Wrong War, Wrong Time'...
The T-34/76 is the wrong tank at the wrong time. A Sherman would have been the best choice given the planes already in the game. If need be the SAherman could have stood in for an east front set up. The Soviets used lots of shermans.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
They were being used until the last day of the war. But if you have an event based on the '44 / '45 ground war then the T-34/76 vs. Tigers and P4s won't stand a chance and turn out maybe be low.
The La5FN is a great aircraft but you can't desing a whole event around it and a T-34/76. Again turn out will be low.
So you end up with late war east front set up with a mid war tank or an earlier war event with either a very limited plane set or a lot of substitutions and you are still stuck with a P-4 vs. T-34/76.
Unless the number ratio is large favoring the T-34; the T-34 wil be over matched by the P4.
You start with eastern front set ups being not that popular among average players. Turn out will be low. With a low turn out the T-34/76 facing an equal (or about equal) numbers of P4s will be a tough match up for the guys in T-34s.
As Kerry says 'Wrong War, Wrong Time'...
The T-34/76 is the wrong tank at the wrong time. A Sherman would have been the best choice given the planes already in the game. If need be the SAherman could have stood in for an east front set up. The Soviets used lots of shermans.
In total agreement on the Sherman but I don't think the T-34 for eastern front ground focused scenarios and set-ups presents as much of a problem as you think. Especially since we haven't even tested how it's modeled yet. Leave the Tiger out. The Panzer IV may be a perfect match.
On a seperate note, I tend to agree with DoK that scenario design centering on attracting a turnout based on apparent preferences and pre-conceptions by a community that seems to indicate that anything that presents more of a challenge than the MA is to be shunned at all costs is, literally, a shame. Even if it turns out to be true. Especially if it turns out to be true. I've flown both sides and it all breaks down to the player's ability, planning and situational awareness more often than not. That holds true in any arena ... and in any event. Even if the design is less than perfect.
If everyone's gonna hold their breath and wait for TOD to come ... maybe HT will see the sudden apparent disinterest in historical events and decide that TOD isn't really worth the time, effort or money.
-
Really a shame ... Russian front events were amongst the favorites in the past. Nothing quite like diving into a true horde of La's and Yak's to get at speeding attack bombers.
If event design is going to end up being driven by who'll show up for what plane sets you're just going to get more organized versions of the MA. And we all know how interesting the MA is.
Oh well.
-
The Panzer IV may be a perfect match.
If it is then something won't be right :p
I tend to agree with DoK that scenario design centering on attracting a turnout based on apparent preferences and pre-conceptions by a community that seems to indicate that anything that presents more of a challenge than the MA is to be shunned at all costs is, literally, a shame.
I wasn't suggesting making scenario 'main arena style events' but when you look at Scenarios as compared to SO and CAP both of those 2 events drew more folks then the typical scenario. Scenario's lean a bit more toward the 'realism' side then SO or CAP.
There are however certain realities. Allied folks don't usually turn out for Eastern front scenarios and it’s just as tough getting axis players to sign up for early Pac stuff.
These are patterns that show up again and again. Part of the problem (or maybe most of the problem) is the plane set. Part of it is that the typical player in AH doesn't have any interest in being 'Japanese' or 'Soviet'. Another part of it is there's no 'scenario' community willing to fly what ever side just to ensure a good fun event. So they would just as easy skip an event then go ahead and jump in an a6m2 or Yak. Another part is how they perceive the victory conditions.
I designed Kurland and it was a flop in terms of participation. Every one I talked with afterward had fun but the numbers were way down. The event was planned for 350 players then reduced to 250. Registration was about 100 allied, 70 axis. Actual participation was about 90 Allies and 60 axis.
The slot event was similar but we had decent squads that went out and got people to walk-on (at least on the axis side).
One thing I think that would make events more interesting is Hatred.
Too much back slapping and congratulations. Bring back the Hate...:aok
-
Originally posted by Wotan
One thing I think that would make events more interesting is Hatred.
Too much back slapping and congratulations. Bring back the Hate...:aok
Hehe .. DoK ... you reading this?
p.s. I agree that getting more planes and vehicles to enhance historical settings would help.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
... maybe HT will see the sudden apparent disinterest in historical events and decide that TOD isn't really worth the time, effort or money.
Don't agree at all with you.
I like a lot of "ging-ging" action in the MA, but look forward to the structured elements of TOD.
The difference between TOD and a scenario will be that I won't have to set aside a specific amount of time on my weekend to play. I can wait until after my kids have gone to bed, put on my leather chaps or silk scarf and sign up for and fly a mission.
-
Originally posted by Furious
Don't agree at all with you.
I like a lot of "ging-ging" action in the MA, but look forward to the structured elements of TOD.
The difference between TOD and a scenario will be that I won't have to set aside a specific amount of time on my weekend to play. I can wait until after my kids have gone to bed, put on my leather chaps or silk scarf and sign up for and fly a mission.
We all know the differences. We also know the differences between events, the CT and the MA.
So basically ... you and who else? Everyone else seems perfectly happy with the MA and could care less about structure, history, scenarios (or TOD) and/or immersion. At least it sure seems that way. See what I mean on perception based on lack of interest? ;)
-
I guess I just don't equate a lack of interest in scenarios with a lack of interest in TOD. That's all.
-
Here's my take on it.....
While the game mechanics and comms are outstanding, the lack of physical chat rooms / OC's / breifing rooms tends to fly in the face of the type of cameraderie that a scenario fosters (or should foster)
I know I used to love the 45 minutes in the (locked) breifing room with my bomb groups as much as the missions. THAT's where people bonded and became "real". Global chat vanished and behind those doors only the group(s) counted.
I think the slow growth of the scenario community here is in part because those "human tools" are missing. Yes, the radio comms are even better than AW - but only if you're thinking like a nerd with 0's and 1's. Sometimes less is more.... and surely BOTH would be the balls.
-W
-
Originally posted by AW=B17=
I know I used to love the 45 minutes in the (locked) breifing room with my bomb groups as much as the missions. THAT's where people bonded and became "real". Global chat vanished and behind those doors only the group(s) counted.
I couldn't agree more. I was just saying this very thing in the CM forum a couple of days ago. That first 45 minutes of so before a frame started was as much part of AW scenarios as the actual flying was. The Briefing Rooms added so much to the atmosphere and feeling that you really were on a very important mission. All the banter that went on between our group members, who were usually a mix of players from each of the three countries, was a great way of getting to know players that were normally 'enemies' in the general arenas. I never get the same feeling of participation here as I did in AW.....
-
Sometimes, when you think past the "functionality", less can be more.
Those closed rooms added the "crunch time" atmosphere and 1000 other human nuances that AH does not yet seem to fully "get".
And if you wanna speak to realism, while the all-pervasive radio might be great comms for the MA, it's *not* realistic for scenario play. The /anns were great for one way orders from command - and just like RL there was no responding to those, just discussion with the group in the room at the time.
And those rooms got used very little in AW when compared to thier all-pervasive use in scenarios. That helped make the scenario "different" or "special" etc etc.
It may take years of lobbying to get some of the chat-rooms back... keep up the good fight. :D
-W
-
It's worth the lobbying effort. Although I do understand the strong desire for this game to "not" be AW, there were a great many things about AW that just lent itself to be more in tune with building on the core community.
The hard part is figuring out what was really physically better on the FE, and which is just a longing for familiarity.
Still, the briefing rooms were huge, from a scenario junkies point of view.
And so as not to hijack the thread, tank runs are a fantastic element to scenarios. I have been in 2, and both were very enjoyable.
-
Hate (tm) is one of the reasons I wanted this thing running 8 missions or more.
It takes 2 or 3 missions for everyone to learn their jobs and the enemy's tendencies. Then the middle missions each side usually scores one major victory ("those %$#!ing bastards"). Then the last third the Survivors battle it out to the bitter end. You really need that "7-game playoff series" feel to build Hate. With only 4 missions it's just barely not a learning experience anymore by the time it's over.
-
Well Dok, we pull off a Peal Harbor, and these guys will be hooked :) Full compliment of moving CVs ohhhh myyyyohmy
From Peal through Midway, theres 8 frames of hate brewing :)
-
ROC, Dok - I'll come back for PH :). Lemme know when on BW.
Cheers,
asw
-
And you're 100% absolutely correct. I could not agree more. Somewhere in the later end of AW the scenario output increased from a couple mega-events per year to the "scenario of the month club". This mentality seems to have crossed seamlessly in AH with another "special event" around every corner.
Aside from the fact that the core talent can't keep giving 100% over and over again - I personally feel (and made my feelings known loud and clear way back then) that the very abundance of these type of little events "cheapens" the genre as a whole. Alas (tm BB) there are always a few scenario junkies that can't give it a rest - ever.
So.... If you *really* wanna show them what it was supposed to be all about, wha tit used to be all about, then design a "Mega-Event" on *your* terms and schedule it to start in late Sept 2005 or mid-january 2006. (IMHO the "after Labor Day" or the "After the holidays" doldrums is prime time for a body count.
The bad news is you have to wait a long time to get the idea to fruition. The good news is that you get almost a year to market it, build the terrain, generate interst, and get that "buzz" going. You can bill it as "something the likes of which has never been seen" because the fact is 90% of the AH peeps have never seen it.
Plus that far out, scheduling is a snap.
Once you design the ulimate "mega scenario" - you get to define the rest of them as "mini scenarios" - and *you* define the genre, as opposed to the current genre defing your event.
-W
PS: Speaking of a 7 game series... "How 'bout those Red Sox?"
:D :D :D
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Hate (tm) is one of the reasons I wanted this thing running 8 missions or more.
It takes 2 or 3 missions for everyone to learn their jobs and the enemy's tendencies. Then the middle missions each side usually scores one major victory ("those %$#!ing bastards"). Then the last third the Survivors battle it out to the bitter end. You really need that "7-game playoff series" feel to build Hate. With only 4 missions it's just barely not a learning experience anymore by the time it's over.
-
This event had to be run now because due to my rather ... uh ... uncertain life situation I don't even know where I may end up living 3 months from now. It was either now or possibly never.
One of the reasons I backed away from scenarios in WB was the push towards "Lites" ... scenario-a-month. They just didn't see what I was trying to do and I didn't feel like fighting about it.
Simply put, though, when I design an event the place and planes are the brushes to paint the event with - not the centerpiece. I look to capture the atmosphere of a desperate defense, an onslaught attack, or whatever - and to make sure people learn the jobs entailed in accomplishing the tasks at hand - MA techniques will usually get you killed. It's a pretty different approach - but it works.
-
One think you can't simulate with a "scenario lite" is combat fatigue. We learned this well with RM and (too)Longbow with 2 sets of 8 frames. While it felt too long then (perhaps should have been 2 sets of 6) it did a few things that other scenarios couldn't do, and made the history books as one of the great ones, right alongside Squabblecanal. :)
I don't mean for my remarks to disparage or upset the fine CM team here that works real hard to grind out the events. I think you saw how helpfull they can be.
That said... if you find the time and lifestyle to put on a mega event, I think it would do just fine as long as it got the proper "run-up" marketing wise. I know I'd rather pay for an account all year to participate in 2 big events than a bunch of little ones. They become a drain after a while except for the most rabid scenario junkies.
Also, this community is evolving a bit differently...... in AW the aftershocks of the 4Q, the Gunfighters etc etc.... continued to define the core mindset. Here the AW's entered into a melting-pot and it's different. Building a scenario community takes time, and building a team dedicated to "mega-scenarios" will prolly take even longer. I don't think the two types of events are mutually exclusive. But they need to see an "old school" scenario to really "get it".
Cod knows the tools here are awesome.... and despite some of us whining for a few private briefing rooms... there is a lot more that this game can do for a scenario build than AW ever could.
-W
-W
-
Agreed ... we have the tools and staff we only wished for in the past.
But it's almost like we need to restart the education process. And that takes a lot of time and community support. And it'll probably require some corporate support from HTC to provide incentives for the MA-entrenched players to try something different.
-
Corporate support......... (light bulb)
For the sake of argument, I'll postulate that the most sucessfull scenario ever run was the Bigweek Scenario to launch AW3 (or was it 2?)
I call it the "best" because it did what no scenario before or after ever did.... it gelled an alpha-community who to this *very* day refuses to let the bigweek.general newsgroup die. It won the marbles.....
Regardless..... it had support from the highest levels of the corporate organization with all the "office staff" such as BB,GE,Moggy,Mage, Quarters et all taking some active participation in the event.
Now..... if you could design an event.... and convince HT and Pyro take a break from the endless programming, improvements, and stuff and **be** the CO's. ( I mean, who's gonna catch up to this in a month?) Tout it on the boards - and build up some rivalry and hate(tm) etc.... Then a lot of people would follow to see just what the hell the noise is all about.
Moreso than any form of financial or trinket support (those are nice too), the best thing HTC could lend to an event is "star power" where the whole office gets involved in the planning and the hate. You'd get a buzz going alright.... :D
One could add incentive with patches and hats - sure! Also to steal a trick out of my former life as a sales motivator: One could "attach" the CON banquet dinner to the event. Anyone attending from the winning team eats prime rib au juice with a big baked potato, and garlic roasted green beans. Anyone from the losing team settles for (you guessed it) lambchops, mashed, and the veggie du jour.
THE LOOSERS WILL EAT SHEEP I TELL YOU!!!! (heh)
Add to this the benifit to HTC staff from getting down and diirty with the rank and file players again. (Even the Rolling Stones have to go back and play along to the old records time and again to keep the music from changing too much over the years.)
Sure.. I'm rambling.... but.....
-W
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Agreed ... we have the tools and staff we only wished for in the past.
But it's almost like we need to restart the education process. And that takes a lot of time and community support. And it'll probably require some corporate support from HTC to provide incentives for the MA-entrenched players to try something different.
-
Originally posted by AW=B17=
One think you can't simulate with a "scenario lite" is combat fatigue. We learned this well with RM and (too)Longbow with 2 sets of 8 frames.
Longbow was actually 3 phases of 6 frames as far as I remember.... I did 4 frames in each phase as the other 2 were evening, mid-week frames, which I couldn't get to. Although many started calling it Too-Longbow, I loved it.... but of course I only went as a gunner then; perhaps if I had been flying all those frames I might have felt differently. :)
-
Originally posted by Flossy
Longbow was actually 3 phases of 6 frames as far as I remember.... I
I think you're right.... I know it was Loooooong... and intense.
But real fun in a sadistic kind of way... :D
-W
-
It was great fun and..... well I'm sure you've heard many times how the end of the last frame was so special for me, one of those times when I really felt I was there..... and of being 'empty' when I realised it was all over.
-
That's the mark of a great event... you get totally "sucked in" you're "there"... and have a feeling of loss when it's sadly over.
-W
-
Originally posted by AW=B17=
Now..... if you could design an event.... and convince HT and Pyro take a break from the endless programming, improvements, and stuff and **be** the CO's. ( I mean, who's gonna catch up to this in a month?) Tout it on the boards - and build up some rivalry and hate(tm) etc.... Then a lot of people would follow to see just what the hell the noise is all about.
That... is... golden!!!!!!
Too many newcomers view HT and Pyro as "the devs," untouchable gods (which they are ;)... The general populace compares them to many other developers and that isn't right. Games of this caliber and genre shouldn't be considered to be 'just another game' by . It isn't a FPS, it isn't an RPG. If they participated as CO's in a scenerio that would certainly spark a revolution. The MA-entrenched folk, as Dok said, would flip!
-
Originally posted by Octavius
That... is... golden!!!!!!
I'm glad you like it Oc. I hope you like me too.
Tilt just sent my tranfer orders to the P40E group.
Effective immediately.
Signed, seald, delivered, I'm yours.
-W
-
I don't know how many people could handle HT's management style. :D
But ... this did give me an idea which would be far easier to implement and which kind of follows the Big Week concept. If HTC worked with the scenario team and had the roll-out of new planes happen within the confines of an event first, that would draw over the MA players.
Oh sure, they'd whine about "Why do I have to fly in a scenario to fly the Ki-84 in combat? Wahhhhh...." ... but ... it would force people to really test fly the new planes (as opposed to the usual MA splooging around), and it'd be an incentive to be in a scenario and get first crack at the new planes.
The only real issue is that releases happen every "two weeks" which makes scheduling an issue. HTC would need to give the scenario team two months warning and then the release would need to be available in beta quality at least 14 days prior to the first mission.
It could easily replicate the Big Week communit where there's several hundred folks in on every major release scenario.
-
The primary reason I came back to fly was for the events.
MA has it's moments. It's good for a squad night, but you just have to love a long drawn out collaborative effort.
What's funny is the low turnout at Rangoon while the MA is screaming for organization and mission planning. They are yelling for what Rangoon is, but stick to the MA. I honestly don't get it.
-
We didn't publicize Rangoon as well as we could is part of it - not everyone reads the BBS, and if you don't read that you probably don't know this is even going on.
And the MA crew are a pretty lazy bunch. They want missions, but they want "someone else" to organize 'em. So I don't know how many would stay with Rangoon once they got in and saw they'd, like, have to read instructions and stuff.
-
You may be able to increase special event arena participation by shutting down the MA during the event. I'm not sure it would be a good idea, though.
Ed561
-
http://www.btinternet.com/~fulltilt/niemen/battle.html
Niemen was 2nd only to Midway in attendance and held numbers better through out its 4 frames.
It was the first multilife AH scenario to incorporate an attrition model and introduced the concept's of "travelling" and capture by encirclement/ logistic starvation. As well as bridges which could be driven over blown up or captured.
I have run Niemen twice. Once in AW and once in AH in both instances victory was an absolute cliff hanger decided in the final moments of the final frame.
The ground war element of a scenario is used in two ways IMO
1) it pulls the air war down into a ground support / ground attack role in a manner that influences the Alt war component to a point where alt caps are not required.
2) it provides role play beyond the initial ac ride
The danger is when it becomes the sole deciding victory consideration........ ie gv's become the main plank of strategm.
Our GV rides are not wide enough in breadth for this and it goes against the mantre of an Air Combat Flight Simulation
When considering heavy GV use, the terrain design has a massive influence on game play and its design has to be taken down to very detailed levels to achieve the balance required.............
unless your setting it in a desert that is.
-
Originally posted by Tilt
http://www.btinternet.com/~fulltilt/niemen/battle.html
2) it provides role play beyond the initial ac ride
The danger is when it becomes the sole deciding victory consideration........ ie gv's become the main plank of strategm.
Yes,
In all the events I've seen GV use in, the most important element was that it gave dead pilots (and pilots whose primary mission was over) a way to contribute for the duration of the frame, as well as adding another "scoring condition".
GV's used well can really add another cool dimension to the play.
-W
-
Originally posted by Wotan
In Kurland the v hangars were un-killable but v hangars along the front were under artillery fire and with just 1 gv life players dared not spawn there. The allies did lots of testing to get range on the front line v hangars and defensive guns and with their 5 min artillery barrage they were able to destroy most of the defensive guns along the front then concentrate on the V hangars taking out the axis players dumb enough to spawn there
Wotan, I spent hours testing "GV deaths" caused by the artillery and is just isn't possible unless you have line fo sight. It dosen't matter if it's in a H2H room or the SEA in AH1. Trust me, we wanted to use it. Every guy who got killed without knowing who shot him complained about artillery death.:rolleyes:
-
Guys, I don't know what you are talking about, but the timeframe of the actual active use of T-34\76, PzIV, La-5, P-39 on the Eastern Front includes the years of 1942 and 1943 when massive ground and air battles took place, the most impressive of them being the Kursk battle.
If you don't expect reasonably massive turnout at Kursk, there's nothing else to expect at all.