Author Topic: Idea for next Scenario (Read 8177 times)

MAG1C · « **Reply #60 on:** April 30, 2006, 01:23:32 PM »

A two stage event might be interesting, but how would we adjust the 2:1 ratio of Axis to Allied players?

Brooke · « **Reply #61 on:** April 30, 2006, 04:59:54 PM »

Good point.

We would have to have it so that some portion of the player base does not switch. That's how it is going to be done in the Pearl Harbor scenario. There would have to be 5 VVS squadrons that stay VVS the whole time.

TexMurphy · « **Reply #62 on:** May 27, 2006, 05:31:17 PM »

Can we beg on our knees that HT makes GV drones.....

GV drones would be to scenarios what Buff drones will be to CT...

Tex

Gypsy Baron · « **Reply #63 on:** May 28, 2006, 12:05:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by TexMurphy
Can we beg on our knees that HT makes GV drones.....

GV drones would be to scenarios what Buff drones will be to CT...

Tex

Why, for heavens sakes?

It seems to me the whole "draw" of this "game" is that you are fighting
against someone with a bit more intelligence than a drone. At least
that's the case the majority of the time

The only thing that makes buff drones "acceptable" to ne is the fact that
there is a real person ( intellect TBD ) driving the formation.

If yours is a comment made as a result of finding the need to drive
GV's in Stalins IV as "boring", then just don't sign up for that flavor
of scenario.

=GB=

Dace · « **Reply #64 on:** May 29, 2006, 03:31:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gypsy Baron
If yours is a comment made as a result of finding the need to drive
GV's in Stalins IV as "boring", then just don't sign up for that flavor
of scenario.=GB=

Cmon GB...u know as well as any, we need all of our "core scenario" pilots to attend all the various scenarios. Attendance is key to any of them. Making an "attendance friendly" scenario is the idea they are trying to get across.

IMHO..for most AHers, GVs are a side show, not worth building a whole scenario around.