Incorporating a Ground War element in a Scenario.. how do we do it?

[Tilt]

Integration of ground war in an AH scenario does present some challenges. But first it is important to establish why ground war is implemented into an air combat scenario in the first place.

In EF/GPW scenarios going right back to Niemen the objective (in this case) was to bring combat down to an altitude that was representative of the conflict. Air borne attrition of battlefield targets was an essential component of the GPW conflict.

In such battles (skirmishes within battles)  the side possessing air superiority over the battle field decided the outcome. Early on the LW made the air safe for its Ju87's latterly the VVS made the air safe for the IL2's whilst the LW squandered its mediium bombers & HS129's etc over the battle fields of Kursk to Bagration.

The problem is one of numbers and scale. We may have a couple of hundred  players representing a conflict of several hundred aircraft. We have even fewer players representing a conflict of thousands of military vehicles and almost millions of infantry.

In this context it is preferable to balance the land war to almost stale mate allwing the A2G element to tip the balance. Or if there is a known (established) GV superiority written into the game play (for one side) then the balance is not one of stalemate but one of "controlled retreat/defence" (as per the conflict).

But with so few GV's the focus becomes too sharp (even for GV pilots with limitless lives) and essentially the GV war could be taken out if lives and access to the battlefield is inhibited.

Hence GV's require maximum access (from any field) and few limitations on lives available (although some limitation on vehicle types is advisable).

In Krupp/Sturm an additional limitation was placed upon the role of the attack aircraft. IMO this contributed well as a game play balancer. It is still problematic however. Aircraft were historically more mobile than GV's yet (through our requirement to permit multiple lives flexible access(spawnage)) in our scenarios the reverse becomes true. GV's are able to leap about the map in a manner that aircraft cannot follow.

We over come this by providing even greater focus by limiting the ground capture targets. Ie there is little search and destroy...both sides know exactly (or nearly) where the conflict will occurr.

The solution looking forward IMO is an AI driven ground war. Finely balanced through out its various areas of conflict. In essence AI GV missions would be set by the CM's according to the designers Mission files. These would have been pretested to eatblish a balance.

Players now interact within and above this AI battle field. Tipping the balance  via A2G and local G2G intervention. Enabling break throughs in the local ground battles and then supporting the drive on to ward the objectives.

Knowing that by his/her intervention or skill that a "break thru occurs  provides game feed back to the player.

Boring GV type jobs can be taken up by AI. GV players can  (via the scenario CoC) tip the balance by launching additional GV's to over come the AI opposition locally. There may even be a player GV responce on the other side to redress balance.

Or even an A2G responce.Provided that air superiority is maintained thru air borne conflict.

In this way the air war does not have to be "bent" to meet a balance with the usually limited ground war. The airwar is a full fledged conflict attempting to maintain air superiority over player chosen (vis CoC) battle fields with direct feed back of success/failure re the out come.

To do this AH would need to make enhanced AI driven Mission-ware available to scenario designers..............hopefu lly one day this will be the case...........

[OOZ662]

The only problem inherent in all of that is how ground players think. We get bombed enough as it is in the MA and would really like it not to happen in scenarios. In order for that to be entirely true, the aircraft have to be segregated from the GVs, and that's just not worthwhile/possible/ect. So, an even medium has to be found. Such was accomplished in this scenario, EXCEPT the enforcement of it. The mass exodus of tankers came about mostly due to the response from the CMs; "Don't post anything negative on the boards, send it to your CO and...someone...will take care of it." "They're only marking tanks with bombs, just ignore the psychological factor of it. Nevermind the A20 that apparently got an assist on one of them." Add to that that GVs on the defensive were so easily snuffed by absolutely murdering our hangars before friendly aircraft could get anywhere close (making it four lives against one, especially with the number of bomber/attacker aircraft the Allies had...our only bombers HAD to go after strat targets, making it much harder for us to plow down VHs) and our tankers just couldn't bear three more frames.

[BlauK]

Nice analytical thoughts, Tilt 

Just thinking, likely an AI driven ground war is quite a long step to the future, but would it help at all if we had GV drones? ...like bombers do.

[CRYPTIC]

This was enabled in this scenario.  Both COs had agreed to it and all that needed to be done was a request for it to implemented be given to Brooke by the respective CO.


Again  another thing our CO didn't tell us lack of communication was the big part of the walk off. Rules agreed on without any questions to other command and then not passed down after agreed on.

[OOZ662]

Again  another thing our CO didn't tell us lack of communication was the big part of the walk off. Rules agreed on without any questions to other command and then not passed down after agreed on.

Ah, yeah, forgot that part.

Randomly finding out he'd agreed to let us rearm anywhere we wanted somewhere around midframe was...helpful. Nobody on either side had been told about the invulnerable radar towers either, by the looks of it.

[Strip]

Allied pilots, as a whole, knew that the radars were indestructible from the very onset....

[OOZ662]

Allied pilots, as a whole, knew that the radars were indestructible from the very onset....

Suppose that's why two or three A20s bombed it.

[Strip]

Allied pilots, as a whole (aka for the most part), knew that the radars were indestructible from the very onset....

Guess that means something else in your language...

Strip

[OOZ662]

Guess so.

whole
/hoʊl/ –adjective
1.    comprising the full quantity, amount, extent, number, etc., without diminution or exception; entire, full, or total: He ate the whole pie. They ran the whole distance.
2.    containing all the elements properly belonging; complete: We have a whole set of antique china.
3.    undivided; in one piece: to swallow a thing whole.
4.    Mathematics. integral, or not fractional.
5.    not broken, damaged, or impaired; intact: Thankfully, the vase arrived whole.

[Strip]

Irregardless of your Websters dictionary quote....

One thing I have began to notice is the only people with low regard for how ground vehicles were handled and overall game play are the Axis players.

Strip

[OOZ662]

Yup. We didn't have any medium bombers available.

[Strip]

I fail to see how that would sway the outcome measurably....

The Axis was in a defensive posture, the rules worked in your favor with respect to GV's. Our IL-2 regiment's scored a total of around 15  kill's combined over 4 frames. Your Fw-190F8's carried a similar amount (more really) of ordnance, or the option to anyway. On top of that they are at least capable of some offensive combat and do not need escort. They racked up a staggering 30+ kills in the first frame alone. You faulting that the lack of a medium bomber is hardly relevant to the discussion of how to include ground vehicles or the axis players disappointment in this scenario.

Strip

[5PointOh]

Fencer, might as well lock this one too. I see it going away from a productive conversation.

[Strip]

     No I think there is something to learn here, Allied drivers had a lot of fun and Axis drivers didn't. A detailed look into each side should show you why the difference in opinion. Blaming the lack of a medium bomber is simply not a viable argument when you look at the numbers. In my opinion the GV's should be handled again in the exact same manner next time. Its impossible to tell all of the variables and analyze how they influenced the event the first time. It seems the Axis disappointment centers around a very minor rule infraction and walk out of some players. Now that the same regiment was short players and leadership through out the frame. Coincidentally, or perhaps not, many of the ground vehicle drivers from that regiment have low opinions of the event.

I have my suspicions about the disappointment but some feelings may get hurt and I am trying to avoid that....

Strip

[sethipus]

Strip makes a good point here.  The Allied gv players, by and large, had a great time and enjoyed the scenario immensely, even though we were held essentially to a standstill during the first two frames, and only really kicked butt during the last two.  The Axis players seem to be really unhappy.

I would suggest that the issues that made the Axis players so unhappy have a lot to do with the Axis leadership, and not the scenario itself.

As far as ground support from the air, I know the 190-F8 pilots must have worked hard practicing that rocketing technique.  During frame 1 I was tracked by a 190 using rockets, in a very spot spot, where multiple Tigers and Panzers had shots at me from 2000-3000 yards away, and I was eventually killed.  In frame 4 I went out with two or three others at V23 to patrol the perimeter and see if anything was going on when some F8s attacked us, and I and another one or two of us were outright killed  by their rockets.

The problem was, in this incident in frame 4, it wasn't coordinated with a simultaneous ground assault, so the F8 kills were essentially meaningless to the overall frame.  That's a leadership and coordination problem, not a "GVs suck in scenarios" problem.

The final comment I have is that the Allied command seemed to value our GV effort more, and made sure we got a good share of the walk-ons and whatnot to boost our numbers.  The Axis command doesn't seem to have done that, because despite relatively similar numbers on both sides starting out the frame, in the last two frames at least the Axis tank forces were probably 4 or 5 people more shorthanded than the Allies were.  Again, that would be something to take up with the Axis high command, and not a problem with GVs in scenarios per se.

I think some good AARs should be held by each side to determine what worked, what didn't, and what issues came up.  I think there are valuable lessons to be learned from not only how this went, but, perhaps more importantly, why the Allied tankers seem to have really loved this scenario, and the Axis ones think it sucked, and announce that they will never GV in a scenario again.

I, for one, really loved this scenario.  I loved the tank action, and I really enjoyed the both the failed attempts to take the German bases in the earlier frames, and the successful base captures later on in the scenario.

From my own personal point of view, I think the Russian forces worked very well indeed with each other.  I think we showed pretty good tactical sense, worked well as a team to achieve our objectives, and had a really good time kicking German butt.  I think the scenario rules were fair, and the forces well-balanced on paper, at least in terms of ground forces.  I hope we do in fact have GV action in upcoming scenarios.  I for sure will be there, and I know some others who feel the same way.