Kursk next?

[BaldEagl]

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.

[Tank-Ace]

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.

[Guppy35]

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.

[Tank-Ace]

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.

[Guppy35]

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

[Fencer51]

It was at least a good 20 minutes.

[Tank-Ace]

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.

[Delirium]

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.

[Fencer51]

We offered to remove GVing completely but the COs wanted it left in.

[ROC]

"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.  

[Tank-Ace]

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.

[SEseph]

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

[Tank-Ace]

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.