Author Topic: Scenarios with Tanks? (Read 4171 times)

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?

Furious · « **Reply #1 on:** October 21, 2004, 12:34:37 PM »

The "Afrika Corps" scenario (1st or 2nd AH scenario, I can't remember which) had a ground vehicle component.

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #2 on:** October 21, 2004, 12:37:22 PM »

Quote

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?

Furious · « **Reply #3 on:** October 21, 2004, 01:00:04 PM »

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.

Swoop · « **Reply #4 on:** October 21, 2004, 01:26:53 PM »

Quote

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.

Arlo · « **Reply #5 on:** October 21, 2004, 02:14:07 PM »

Battle of the Bulge would be cool. Oh wait .... they modeled the T-34 instead!

Octavius · « **Reply #6 on:** October 21, 2004, 02:20:18 PM »

Quote

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.

heh, what was the substitute again? The Tiffy?

Wotan · « **Reply #7 on:** October 21, 2004, 02:24:57 PM »

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.

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #8 on:** October 21, 2004, 02:49:13 PM »

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.

Wotan · « **Reply #9 on:** October 21, 2004, 03:40:21 PM »

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.

Arlo · « **Reply #10 on:** October 21, 2004, 04:05:52 PM »

Quote

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.

Wotan · « **Reply #11 on:** October 21, 2004, 04:20:50 PM »

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.

Arlo · « **Reply #12 on:** October 21, 2004, 05:36:16 PM »

Quote

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.

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #13 on:** October 21, 2004, 05:46:59 PM »

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.

Wotan · « **Reply #14 on:** October 21, 2004, 06:09:37 PM »

Quote

The Panzer IV may be a perfect match.

If it is then something won't be right

Quote

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...