FSO : Ground War

[Spikes]

I was thinking some objective where the only way you could get it was by M3 or 251, which requires tank defense and tank offense as well. I also like that idea of a cloud layer, maybe at 1 or 2K.

[perdue3]

Like I said, the last FSO where GVs were involved, the tanks had a completely separate objective than planes. Therefore no planes were in the area.

[Bino]

GVs?  No, thanks.  Don't much care for them.

But thank you for asking.   

[daddog]

I have no problem with having GV's in FSO occasionally. Done it once or twice myself in my designs.

I don't think I could be talked into an all GV FSO.

[Zoney]

Well, I think that FSO's are the best part of the game and that GV's of all types are the worst so obviously, NO I would not be interested in doing an FSO.  That would change completely if the AK's (my squad) wanted to join because I will follow them anywhere.

[captain1ma]

i did a "all GV setup" in the AVA and it was epic. no planes to bomb them. it was a total blast. even guys that didnt normally use GV's tried it. probably one of the best times we've had in the AVA. 27 m4's, firefly's and such, versus 13 tigers and panzers. it ended in a draw!

just my 2 cents.


(yet another shameless advertisement for the AVA!     )

[68falcon]

 

I have no problem with having GV's in FSO occasionally. Done it once or twice myself in my designs.

I don't think I could be talked into an all GV FSO.

 

[Spikes]

I have no problem with having GV's in FSO occasionally. Done it once or twice myself in my designs.

I don't think I could be talked into an all GV FSO.

I'd say a second life GV furball could be fun. After a pilot dies he can help the war effort by attacking a ground target with a GV.

[branch37]

I wouldnt have a problem with a second life GV fight.  It seems one time there was a GV part to a FSO, I cant remember if it was a second life or not but it did give me a good laugh when I drove my M4 straight into a Tiger

[ghostdancer]

I have done a couple of designs with GV elements. Basically it was a capture and hold the flag type of mission with both sides having to deploy a few squads in GVs and then take a base and hold onto it up to the T+60 mark. Then they got second lives in planes for the second hour of the event.

2nd life is crucial since most people want to fly and also keeping the GV force to small to mid size level I found was important since quite a few people don't care for GVing. So if it is like 10% to 15% or so a side (20-32) that usually allows a CiC to assign squads who actually like GVing instead of forcing it upon those who don't. Not sure if I would try an all GV event.

I have tried GV second life for people a few times but my implementation of it didn't work well. Tried to use to simulate an amphibious invasion and just didn't really turn out well.

[Anaxogoras]

If FSO moves to GV-only frames, then reopening my account will have been a huge mistake.

My $.02.

[Stampf]

I have no problem with having GV's in FSO occasionally. Done it once or twice myself in my designs.

I don't think I could be talked into an all GV FSO.

Thank the gods for small favors.

[49Jester]

yes Nef, I remember that, That was a good one, If we cant do an all GV FSO, then a split sounds good. That worked well and was fun

 

[Viper61]

The GD set up and scenario I think worked very well.  I was on that frame in a GV and both sides had a blast as I remember from the BBS posts following the engagement.

The capture and hold the flag type of scenario worked very well with both sides starting an equal distance from the base.  The base being neutral shot at both sides until you captured it.  Holding on to it became the real tactical strategy.  It required a mix of support vehicles with troops and supplies as the base was recaptured.  Then exactly at H+60 who every controlled the base got the points.  Then both sides upped in non-ordance carring AC to help our sides.  Adding pilots to the late frame in non carring ordnance AC again was a great idea because it didn't swing the frame and allows these additional AC to fill holes in defenses or conduct fighter sweeps.

Overall a very well thought out plan and worked out well also.  Now I think it would be even better given the addition of several new GV's since that time.

[NAVCAD1]

Although I am rarely on the boards in here, I to would like to add my 2 cents worth.  An occasional GV aspect to FSO would be a welcome treat to a lot of people.  I agree though that a total GV FSO is not the way to go.  Like WWhiskey said earlier, lay in a fog bank and have a seperate objective for the aircraft that would eliminate the threat of bombing.  The capture the flag thought has merit.  I know I for one would up in a GV in that type scenario.

Just my 2 cent's....and no i'm not a noob, just havn't been in here in a few years...LOL