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

[USRanger]

C'mon, this scenario was tilted at the start, for one CM to win.

Wow...

[sethipus]

Moray, the sad thing is that some really great tank battles were fought during this scenario.  Especially in the last two frames.  If you had been on the ground during these frames, you would probably have loved it.

[MORAY37]

Implying that the scenario was specifically setup for one side to win is absolute crap.

Strip

One side was completely unbalanced.  That's fact.

Axis air cover was always more than 20 minutes away at the start of any frame.  Usually 3 sectors or more from takeoff field.  Allied air cover showed up in the first frame, exactly 4 minutes and 32 seconds into the frame.  Want the film?

Axis had 6 guys in Tigers.  Allies 14 in M4's and T3485's.  And the rest in T3476's.... that can handle a Tiger round from the front.

To say the field was not slanted in any way is simply  retarded.  The end result was never in any sort of doubt.  Not even close.

[Strip]

One side was completely unbalanced.  That's fact.

Axis air cover was always more than 20 minutes away at the start of any frame.  Usually 3 sectors or more from takeoff field.  Allied air cover showed up in the first frame, exactly 4 minutes and 32 seconds into the frame.  Want the film?

Axis had 6 guys in Tigers.  Allies 14 in M4's and T3485's.  And the rest in T3476's.... that can handle a Tiger round from the front.

To say the field was not slanted in any way is simply  retarded.  The end result was never in any sort of doubt.  Not even close.

It was unbalanced because lack of players in GV's on the Axis side, you need to check yourself when blaming that on the designers. Axis had a comparable force, with around 45% of the total players, the slots were available to be used. Maybe you should pose that question to your leadership and command structure, especially the walkon handler.

On the Allies bomber and vehicle regiments were given a large portion of the walkons to make sure those slots were filled.

How you organized your personnel is not anything to do with the CM's or the creation of the scenario layout.

In any event Allies had a tough run at the strats the first few frames, especially the first two. We flew two sorties the entire frame, one lasting 1:30 and another around 1:45 round trip. You see me complaining about it? No, was it comparatively more difficult than the axis targets? Heck yes it was, all the more reason to celebrate and pat each other on the back when the frame was over.

More and more I am seeing poor sports and sore losers this scenario....sometimes your the bug, sometimes your the windshield.

Strip

[MORAY37]

In any event Allies had a tough run at the strats the first few frames, especially the first two.

You captured the first Vbase during the first frame, in 21 minutes.

How hard did you have it again?

[MORAY37]

More and more I am seeing poor sports and sore losers this scenario....sometimes your the bug, sometimes your the windshield.

Strip

Strip, nothing poor or sore about it.  If it's not fun, don't expect many more of these things to happen.  People eventually stop trying to make things better and just walk away.  Many GV'rs are walking away.

As far as the GV aspect is concerned, that's about where I am.  There's enough to deal with as far as girlfriend/wife ack on a saturday for four hours for 4 straight weeks, than to also not enjoy your time playing a game.



  

 

[MORAY37]

It was unbalanced because lack of players in GV's on the Axis side, you need to check yourself when blaming that on the designers. Axis had a comparable force, with around 45% of the total players, the slots were available to be used. Maybe you should pose that question to your leadership and command structure, especially the walkon handler.


Strip

Lack of GV's?  WE WERE FULL IN FRAME ONE. 

And I will blame the design, thank you.  Again, 14 to 6 in perked GV's, with aircover for the soviets within 4 minutes and 30 seconds of takeoff, frame one.

I hate to think what you think balanced is.

[Strip]

Thats funny, I thought strat was short for strategic targets, like ammo, flak, troop factories and cities? Read some of my AAR's, we went on some very deep strike missions. They were tough, sometimes ugly, but I enjoyed every minute of it.

I am done Moray, you continue to blame the wrong people for a problem your own side had the most effect on.

Strip

[Strip]

One last bit for giggles since you are stuck on the perk aspect....

The Allies could use all of their GV's in the MA for around 60 perks for 14 drivers. The Axis would have around 180 perks, hardly even if you base it solely off perks.

If you consider my perk argument invalid, then it certainly negates your argument about 14 vs 6 in perk vehicles.

Strip

[MORAY37]

Thats funny, I thought strat was short for strategic targets, like ammo, flak, troop factories and cities? Read some of my AAR's, we went on some very deep strike missions. They were tough, sometimes ugly, but I enjoyed every minute of it.

I am done Moray, you continue to blame the wrong people for a problem your own side had the most effect on.

Strip

Ohhhhhh  a tough run on strategic targets.  Poor you.  So you mean you could actually shoot back though?

 Yeah, I couldn't.  Even when I could shoot back with a pintle gun (whilst avoiding "marking" bombs), it was strafed off against the rules (as well as three other Axis gvr's) , by a yak.

I'm finished, as well.  A bomber pilot in this scenario, that didn't even participate in the ground action, is telling me I'm wrong.

[Strip]

Show me were that makes my opinion invalid or wrong....

Never mind my friendship with a ground vehicle player that did drive in some frames and watching a butt load of film from both sides.

Strip

[Kermit de frog]

  Every scenario has had and will always have it's arguments that challenge teamwork to exist.  Those who overcome these challenges and come together to work as a team are usually the victors in both the fun and strategical factors.  Without teamwork, you've already lost, regardless of what the outcome is via points.

[Brooke]

Every scenario I've been in has a group of people (5-10 out of 150-250) who get upset because there is some aspect to the scenario that they believe is intolarably incorrect.

What most people don't realize is that, in a scenario where an aspect can be A or B, there is always a group that is positive that A is best and another group that is just as positive that B is best.

For example, in this topic, there are statements about how things were badly biased towards the Russian side, yet there were folks just as sure that the opposite was true:

I've just read the rules and it will be a successfully German biased scenario.

How can I remove my registration ?

 I don't want to be involved in this joke.

84 fighter on the russian side
116 on the german side

Nothing even at start add to this the little details and the outcome of the event will be : German side victory

Russian side should be on offensive without having the mean to do it.
That's stupid.

Still I don't understand how the soviet side can be on offensive with less fighter and fighter of less quality (read 39q) and useless strat bomber (read b25).

I didn't read all of the rules but the thing that immediately jumped out at me is that you guys are going to require the Russian players to be offensive with even force numbers.  That pretty much means the Germans win, period.

I did read the writeup at the start of the thread before I read any other post.  It listed historical numbers of 5000 Russian aircraft and 1800 German aircraft, yet in the scenario you turned that into German numeric equality or even superiority.

Why sign up for something that has a scripted outcome?  Where is the fun in that?

What we do in design is our best to pick a good balance among historical elements, playability, and action (some of which pull in opposite directions).  We aren't perfect and don't have a crystal ball.  What we pick is unlikely to be perfect, but it is the best we can figure after putting in a lot of thought.  No matter what we pick, some group somewhere is going to be sure that we are wrong.  That is human nature.  Unfortunately, it is also human nature for some of those folks to severely criticize us for what we pick.  That adds a lot of unpleasantness to the process, not just for us scenario CM's (who are just players, like you guys, but volunteering our time to help run these things) but for other players as well who don't enjoy the negativity and the conflict.  I wish that there could be more tolerance.

[Strip]

Well said Brooke.....

I am done with this, what had been a constructive conversation has now deteriorated into something else.

Looking forward to the next scenario very much!

Strip

[sethipus]

I find it so ironic that if the later frames in the GV part of this scenario were in fact unbalanced, and I will agree they probably were, it was only because of a drop of numbers on the Axis side because of the people who quit earlier on.

I think those who stuck it out for the whole scenario, at least on the Allied side, and at least some on the Axis side, had a good time, and some good tank fighting was experienced and enjoyed immensely.  If the Axis had just had 4 or 5 more people, who likely quit earlier on, they would have made it much, much more competitive.

"This scenario sucks, and I'm going to do everything I can to make sure I'm right."

Also - pintle gun?  Moray, you were driven from your GV because you lost your pintle gun?  So what?  What were you expecting you would do with it that was frustrated by that dasturdly Yak pilot?

My T34-85 has never had a pintle gun at all - and it never stopped me.