Author Topic: Incorporating a Ground War element in a Scenario.. how do we do it?  (Read 13191 times)

Offline Dantoo

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 965
      • http://www.9giap.com
Re: Incorporating a Ground War element in a Scenario.. how do we do it?
« Reply #120 on: November 29, 2009, 09:22:20 PM »
If I might make a suggestion that could take this forward (maybe).  I would like to build on some of Tilt's first post which makes the statement "
Quote
the objective (in this case) was to bring combat down to an altitude that was representative of the conflict.
.
His first conclusion is
Quote
Hence GV's require maximum access (from any field) and few limitations on lives available (although some limitation on vehicle types is advisable).
 

I believe that the major problem with DoB, which was repeated here to a lesser extent, was the effort to funnel and contain the GV action by design rules.  No doubt it was done with the very best of intentions.  Surely it was done to guarantee action for the GV element given the planned low number of participants.

In my opinion this apparent solution creates a greater problem.  Once you confine the attack to a single base or line of advance you have completely contained the ground war in a small bowl.  You lose freedom of manouvre and freedom of action.  A lot of the time you are forced to spawn and just sit.  If you are defending you are forced to sit still in cover and wait to be bombed out.  If you are attacking you are forced to get your spawn cleared by bombing out or you are in great danger of being camped and knocked out of the game very early.  Once you roll as an attacker your line of advance has to be cleared for you as well if it is open country.  DoB was the very epitome of this problem. You have to seriously love tanking to enjoy that concept.

The last two frames of this scenario gave much greater freedom and mobility to the gv element.  I would warrant that this ability to move the attacking front rapidly reduced the ability of a defender to bottle-up and simply pound down an attack force. An ability to attack on a broader front by the Axis would have reduced the effect of Il2s immediately.  In order to respond to attacks on a broader front, a commander has to utilise the air elements differently as well as the ground elements.  An attacking commander also has to coordinate the use of his air elements with ground rather than just keep pushing them into the cauldron at the highest level they can climb to whilst trying to gain an initial advantage.

I would be willing to lay a wager, of maybe 3 cents, that the Allied side were so busy attacking their multitude of targets in the last two frames that they were kept exceptionally busy and therefore enjoying themselves. They didn't have time to get grumpy.  I might go out on a limb and guess that a lack of numbers on the Axis side and perhaps a lack of ability to respond, left a feeling of hopelessness at times.  What I did definitely observe on the Allied side was that the planning was so thorough that it led to such a high level of confidence, that even when presented with what may have been major setbacks, they were shrugged off with a "don't worry we'll grab that base back in 30 minutes". 
I get really really tired of selective realism disguised as a desire to make bombers easier to kill.

HiTech

Matthew 24:28 For wherever the carcass is, there is where the vultures gather together.

Offline Tilt

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7358
      • FullTilt
Re: Incorporating a Ground War element in a Scenario.. how do we do it?
« Reply #121 on: November 30, 2009, 02:30:18 PM »

I would be willing to lay a wager, of maybe 3 cents, that

do you carry a purse?

No Skuzzy dont do it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But that aside he has a point.    if the design removes options from a side/a group/a squad to modify their game plan in game. Then you remove their opportunity to modify their actions for greater enjoyment....... which (the modification) hopefully is also condusive to greater success and reward.
Ludere Vincere

Offline USRanger

  • AvA Staff Member
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10325
      • BoP Home
Re: Incorporating a Ground War element in a Scenario.. how do we do it?
« Reply #122 on: November 30, 2009, 07:04:59 PM »
This is the Allied GV plan for Frame 1.  It's a bit long, so bear with me.  It's a copy & paste from the Allied forum.  I just wanted to show this to go along with what Dantoo was saying.  Maybe we overdid it, but it was enjoyable to plot & plan.  I look forward to seeing the other side's plans & see how they went about it.



Tankers, your orders

   Comrades, we will be launching a glorious assault on the enemy's V36.  We will be attacking from 2 spawn points, one to the North, the other to the South. The following order applies to all 3 Regiments:  After spawning, you will proceed to your designated rally point and form a defensive position (hiding out) until friendly air assets are 10 miles from V36, at which point I will give the general attack command and we will begin our assault.  Here are the orders for each Regiment:

119th Regiment:

   You will spawn north from 47 to a point south of V36.  Large hills separate you from the field.  Your orders are to proceed northwest and seize the ridge overlooking the plain below, which contains the spawn from the enemy's A56.  You will set up a defensive line on the ridge and overwatch the area in front of you.  Your holding position has beed codenamed X-ray.  When in position, you will report "X-ray secure" to me.  Your responsibility during our waiting-for-the-bombers phase is to hold that ridge, protect our spawn, and stop and enemy armor coming from 56's spawn trying to reinforce V36.  You have a good view of their approach and I'm counting on you to stop them using long range accurate fire and shoot & scoot movements to keep your exact positions from being zeroed in on.  If you are fired on by tanks on the hills south of the field, use the terrain for cover to get out of sight.  We don't want to get in a slugfest at this point, especially if they have elevation.  

   When the general attack order is given, you will proceed down the ridge to its base(giving you cover from any enemy tanks that made it atop the hills S. of V36) and follow it until you come out on the southern edge of V36. There you will (a) assault the field en mass from the southwest side or (b) if they are spawning in from 56, split into two teams.  Team Alpha will assault the field and Team Bravo will keep the enemy coming from 56's spawn at bay and out of the fight on the field.  Flight17 will make the call on site as to which plan needs to be put in place.  The original plan is to have both A & B teams at 3 tanks apiece, but if there is heavy resistance from 56's spawn, the force can be divided up as necessary.  You are responsible for the southern third of this field gentlemen.  I want all ack and enemy armor destroyed.  Friendly air will support the attack on the hangers.  With any luck, they will drop the hangers just after the attack starts and we can clean up enemy GVs and get it done fast.  We only have 10 minutes for hangers down in this.  The first 2 of your Regiment to die are to grab M3s and to proceed as safely to the field as safety permits, and await the call for troops.

Option B is to assault the field through a cut in the hills if necessary.  While it is a little faster to field than the primary plan, to fire on the field you have to sit on the opposing side of the hill, at a steep angle, and expose your tank to every swingin' deek with a gun.  Another problem with Option B is you will beat your sister Regiments to the field by a wide margin and will be facing the enemy alone for too long.

In the event that the enemy would be foolish enough to attack in force over the hills S. of 36 while you are holding your initial ridge, your order is to do a fighting withdrawal to the South, suckering as many enemy tanks as possible away from their field & support.  So, if attacked over those hills, withdraw South until the terrain benefits you and form a defensive line and hold.  Good luck Comrades :salute














18th Regiment:

   Comrades, you will spawn S. from A19 to the backside of the hills to the north of V36.  You will proceed East (your left), using the backside of the hill for cover, until you come to a cut in the hills NE of the field.  This is the enemy's fastest avenue of approach to get in the hills near our spawn.  You will form a defensive line on the crest of the hill near the cut, and overwatch this area for any & all enemy activity.  This position is codenamed Yankee.  When in position, it will be reported "Yankee secure".  You will be providing cover for the 55th Regiment during their movement and helping watch the southwestern area of the field to provide intelligence to the 119th positioned on the ridge south of the field.  When the general assault command is given, you will proceed on line down the hill and attack the field from the north.  Use your long range capability and good use of cover.  Friendly air will help to mark targets.  When you reach the edge of the field, I want all the M4s to lay down a thick smokescreen across the field (and don't forget the tower).  I want as much enemy confusion as we can cause.  By the time the smoke is laid, the hangers should be down, with only some cleanup to do.  M3s will use this smokescreen to move onto the field.  If you are on the field and not engaged, I want you to move to the maproom to cover M3s.  Your job is to protect the troops!

   A note:  DR7 is on the enemy side.  He can hit a tank at insane ranges on the first or second shot.  So even if you are long range fighting with the enemy, make sure you are using good use of cover and displace to another position often.  I recommend after every 2nd shot.  

Option B is a more westerly approach to the field if the enemy somehow controls the original assault area or the hills above.

Good luck Comrades :salute







55th Regiment:

   You are to spawn S. out of 19 to the hills N. of V36 with the 18th.  You will also head east (your left), following the 18th.  The 18th will take up a covering position at the cut in the hills N. of V36.  Once they have you covered, your Regiment will cross the backside of the cut and proceed up the opposing hill onto the ridge on the northeast side of V36, which overlooks the field.  Be sure to stay away from the field side of the ridge, so as not to be seen by the enemy.  I want your movement as secret as possible for as long as we can.  When you get to your staging area overlooking the field, shut down and don't take any pot shots, fire only if attacked directly.  Your staging position is codenamed Zulu.  When in position, you will report to me "Zulu secure".  If somehow the enemy gets in the hills and threatens your position, withdraw back to the 18th.  From their position, they can overlook & cover your entire route.  If all is good, when the general attack order is given, you are to start raining hell down on the enemy on the field.  This will work in conjunction with friendly bombers dropping on the field.  When your sister Regiments reach the edge of the field, you are to charge down the hill onto the northeast side of the field, completing our three pronged attack.  Hangers will be down fairly quickly (I hope) and all you should have to deal with is any remaining GVs and any ack that survived.  You men are the hammer against the anvil that comprise the 119th & 18th.  Most enemy tanks will have their backs to you.  I want you to come charging down that hill and smack em like they owe ya money.  The smoke from the M4s should cover your rapid decent down the slope.  Good luck Comrades. :salute

The first two of this Regiment killed need to grab M3s for their 2nd life and spawn back in from 19 when able.






An overview of the attack:



Axis vs Allies Staff Member
☩ JG11 Sonderstaffel ☩
Flying 'Black[Death] 10' ☩JG11☩

Only the Proud, Only the Strong Ne Desit Virtus

Offline Kermit de frog

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3698
      • LGM Films
Re: Incorporating a Ground War element in a Scenario.. how do we do it?
« Reply #123 on: November 30, 2009, 11:13:05 PM »
We need drooling smiley face.   :D
 :salute USRanger

"Sloehand's DoB team vs USRanger's RSKS team"  Imagine the level of organization, teamwork and the epic fight that would ensue.
 :cheers:
Time's fun when you're having flies.

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: Incorporating a Ground War element in a Scenario.. how do we do it?
« Reply #124 on: November 30, 2009, 11:19:06 PM »
Unlimited freedom for the GVs leads only to sneak tactics, avoiding fights, the equivelant of MA "milk running" -- because 99% of MA GVs only spawn camp or they try to sneak past some defense to spawn camp (or rarely, take a field).

The structure in scenarios is NEEDED to make them actually FACE each other as they did historically. Imagine if the entire Red Storm all the 190Ds and K4s and Las and Yaks ran 100 miles away screaming for help any time an enemy showed up in icon range (like most do in the MAs?)

It's not conducive to a scenario to give "free range" for GVs, IMO. There will always have to be regulations and rules. GVs ought to have limited lives just as planes ought to. Otherwise... guess what? You're back to the MA. This ain't the MA! It NEVER has been, and should never become it in the future. Scenario pilots get that, and enjoy it. GV players either don't get that, but can change, or won't enjoy it, and would rather go back to the MA hum-drum.

The question is: Can you muster the enthusiasm to follow somebody else's orders, some pre-set rules, and try to get the job done in a semi-historical way? If so you're already set for scenarios! If not there will never be any pleasing you all. (I say you all since I'm not a major tanker. I dabble in it and witness a lot of the above described situations in the MAs).


EDIT: Premature "post" clickage... continuing:

If the answer is "no" then we don't need to debate GVs in scenarios, as apparently not even the GV folks want it. Going by the numbers participating, it's not many. I'm curious who keeps advocating the inclusion of GVs. Is it the GVers, or is it the flyboys? (that's an honest question btw, might explain a few things, or raise more questions, depending on the answer)
« Last Edit: November 30, 2009, 11:21:40 PM by Krusty »

Offline Tilt

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7358
      • FullTilt
Re: Incorporating a Ground War element in a Scenario.. how do we do it?
« Reply #125 on: December 01, 2009, 04:55:49 AM »
If...
  • The Gv objectives of both sides are structured to provide conflicting objectives then they will meet
  • The Gv objectives of both side give choice then both sneak attacks and conflicts occur (Strike and counter strike)
  • The multiple gv lives are limited to premium rides but unlimited in gv support lives then a few players can take on the roles of many
  • The few AC lives are supplemented by unlimited gv support lives then a few more players can take on the roles of many and sustain input into the frame beyond their primary role

Then IMO this level of freedom is condusive to enhancing the overall scenario experience via the integration of a ground war element.

It all then comes down to numbers and opportunities

I dont mean shows/no shows. The LW had abour 1000-1500 fighter air craft on the EF during most of the conflict. We will represent this (in scenario) in a local conflict with a battle ratio of about 1:2. And given two lives many EF scenarios can be modelled nearly 1:1 re the actual air battles.

Yet in the ground war we have a scenario:RL ratio of nearer 1:20. yet the objective is to interface the two!!!

Krupp/Sturm resolved this by restricting  the number of AC who could attack GV's. My view would be to first maximise GV's (see above)then consider if this is still required.

I would return to my previous arguement re AI mission driven stuff as being the "next step"

 there are some points made earlier in this debate I agree with.

  • Get rid of (or restrict further) Gv icon visibility from the air (particularly when GV's are "under cover")
  • Make GV fields more of a challange
  • Be aware of designs that induce stalemates on the ground............ attack and counter attack (capture/ re capture) is more fun than stand off slug fest with no outcome
Ludere Vincere

Offline Easyscor

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10899
Re: Incorporating a Ground War element in a Scenario.. how do we do it?
« Reply #126 on: December 01, 2009, 08:32:55 AM »
You guys should listen to Tilt, and incorporate where you can. He's an old hand at this and has forgotten more then most of you will ever learn.
Easy in-game again.
Since Tour 19 - 2001

Offline Strip

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3319
Re: Incorporating a Ground War element in a Scenario.. how do we do it?
« Reply #127 on: December 01, 2009, 08:44:57 AM »
You guys should listen to Tilt, and incorporate where you can. He's an old hand at this and has forgotten more then most of you will ever learn.

Yes because anyone who is not a CM is incapable of understanding....that is a pretty asinine comment in my book.

 :rolleyes:

Offline Strip

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3319
Re: Incorporating a Ground War element in a Scenario.. how do we do it?
« Reply #128 on: December 01, 2009, 08:51:35 AM »
there are some points made earlier in this debate I agree with.

  • Get rid of (or restrict further) Gv icon visibility from the air (particularly when GV's are "under cover")
  • Make GV fields more of a challange
  • Be aware of designs that induce stalemates on the ground............ attack and counter attack (capture/ re capture) is more fun than stand off slug fest with no outcome

1. This would require code changes within the game itself.

Strip

Offline Have

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1504
Re: Incorporating a Ground War element in a Scenario.. how do we do it?
« Reply #129 on: December 01, 2009, 09:08:32 AM »
1. This would require code changes within the game itself.
Strip

Unfortunately so. I would love to fly and run events with icons off. Currently the icons can be only turned off on the client side, which is ok with a small trusted group, but could not possibly be used in a scenario with hundreds of players.

IMHO the whole icon system could be reworked, but that is an another story :)

Offline Easyscor

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10899
Re: Incorporating a Ground War element in a Scenario.. how do we do it?
« Reply #130 on: December 01, 2009, 09:33:16 AM »
Yes because anyone who is not a CM is incapable of understanding....that is a pretty asinine comment in my book.

 :rolleyes:

Clearly, I need to point out what I actually said, "You guys should listen to Tilt, and incorporate where you can."

Sorry, I didn't feel the underline and bold face type were required for understanding before, I guess I was wrong, or maybe you just chose not to understand.
Easy in-game again.
Since Tour 19 - 2001

Offline Tilt

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7358
      • FullTilt
Re: Incorporating a Ground War element in a Scenario.. how do we do it?
« Reply #131 on: December 01, 2009, 09:53:40 AM »
1. This would require code changes within the game itself.

Strip

Well the ground AI missions and the icons would require input from HTC.  Icons certainly  not high level COAD though. Its becomes another "todo" amidst all the other priorities.

and I am not the font of all knowledge............ one of the problems with experience is that sometimes it dulls innovation. Sometimes the most experienced of us can be the least flexible to new ideas or even the re interpretation of old ones.

I saw a photo of Brooke at the 1992? AW con the other day so there is a wealth of  experience here beside me

GV fields can be made harder by playing with the settings a little. Anti stalemate stuff is a matter of gameplay design and rule set.

Also look closely to the terrain. The CM team has  a whole group of highly motivated folk making and (sometimes) modifying terrains. HTC does not encourage non standard fields anymore but moving/adding the odd spawn point or hill is very possible.

If you work with the CM admining your design then you need only ask. The asnwer maybe NO and there may be another work around. But if you/we don't ask, for sure  you/we will not get.




Ludere Vincere

Offline Easyscor

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10899
Re: Incorporating a Ground War element in a Scenario.. how do we do it?
« Reply #132 on: December 01, 2009, 10:22:10 AM »
True Tilt, and I wish you'd qualify the wish list items separately from your descriptions, but again, you were designing good GV setups when some of these guys were trying to chose between a Star Wars or Batman lunch pail. :D
Easy in-game again.
Since Tour 19 - 2001

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: Incorporating a Ground War element in a Scenario.. how do we do it?
« Reply #133 on: December 01, 2009, 01:51:36 PM »
I'm going to share my thoughts in response to some posts in this and the other threads:

in no order:

1) You should no more likely remove GV icons than you should remove airplane icons.

What next? Remove GV dots? Why, you know, if HTC removed my icon, my plane, hell my very DOT from the game, I bet I could get a lotta kills too!! And I bet if nobody could kill me I'd have the mostest points in the world!

 :rolleyes:


2) I don't think "sneak attacks" are very realistic IMO. It's gaming the game. It's milkrunning an objective. I suppose the Germans just opened up their front lines during the battle of the bulge and let the allies "sneak" past several hundred miles to sack towns behind them? It's one of those gameplay conventions in the MA that GV drivers want because it's easy, gives them lots of points, etc. God forbid they should fight their way through the front lines to get to the objective?

3) I also don't think limiting aircraft numbers while boosting GVs is a valid suggestion. That's stupid. I don't care who ya are. This is a FLIGHT sim, and GVs have been tacked onto it. It's quite obvious the GVs are an afterthought, when you compare the bugs, the damage systems, the very GV modeling itself, vs the way things really worked on a battlefield. Don't get me wrong, I can see a place for GVs in scenarios, but a "majority GV scenario" will never work. Ever. Period. End of paragraph. New line. This is, and always WILL be a flight game, first and foremost.

That said, we should not coddle the GVs any more than we should coddle the pilots. Every scenario has its own rules, but if Red Storm was played with only 2 GV lives, same as the pilots got planes, what's wrong with that? You die 2x in 5 minutes you're out, same as the pilots!

We've all had bad scenario frames (look at Strip in RS!) where we get wiped out before even heading to target. Do we get extra lives to make up for that? No. It does happen, though. So why coddle reckless GVers? Make them play it smart like we have to. There's no reward if there's no risk. They get unlimited lives and the entire situation devolves into MA furballishness, but you reduce the lives and perhaps it evolves to a higher level. Perhaps it becomes something that takes a bit of skill and concentration (and, just maybe, luck!).

Tying directly back into point #1, how much to we cater to them, to the point they are rolling around in virtual god-mode with no opposition, and we must stay perfectly still while they spawn camp us? I very much understand it's all a balance, but there's far too much politics in it right now.

Ya know what, do what you can, but don't bend over backwards for them. If they don't have the stomach for scenario play they won't participate. Softening rules/regs just to get random MA GV players in "to fill slots" is about as wise as staffing an entire team with newbie walkon pilots from the MA that have never participated in scenarios before. Those that signed up definitely don't want to have them ruining their time and effort.

"Drumming up" GV interest only goes so far. It's like any recruiting effort. You try too hard, and you start collecting folks you don't want, that don't share your interests or goals. At that point you realize "Okay, only 10 [or 20, or fill in the blank] seem to have the interest" and you just limit the GV role. That doesn't mean isolating them, removing them from all interaction. Just means figure something out where less GVs can still help win the battle.

Offline Strip

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3319
Re: Incorporating a Ground War element in a Scenario.. how do we do it?
« Reply #134 on: December 01, 2009, 03:38:36 PM »
We've all had bad scenario frames (look at Strip in RS!) where we get wiped out before even heading to target. Do we get extra lives to make up for that? No. It does happen, though. So why coddle reckless GVers? Make them play it smart like we have to. There's no reward if there's no risk. They get unlimited lives and the entire situation devolves into MA furballishness, but you reduce the lives and perhaps it evolves to a higher level. Perhaps it becomes something that takes a bit of skill and concentration (and, just maybe, luck!).

Tying directly back into point #1, how much to we cater to them, to the point they are rolling around in virtual god-mode with no opposition, and we must stay perfectly still while they spawn camp us? I very much understand it's all a balance, but there's far too much politics in it right now.

Ya know what, do what you can, but don't bend over backwards for them. If they don't have the stomach for scenario play they won't participate. Softening rules/regs just to get random MA GV players in "to fill slots" is about as wise as staffing an entire team with newbie walkon pilots from the MA that have never participated in scenarios before. Those that signed up definitely don't want to have them ruining their time and effort.

"Drumming up" GV interest only goes so far. It's like any recruiting effort. You try too hard, and you start collecting folks you don't want, that don't share your interests or goals. At that point you realize "Okay, only 10 [or 20, or fill in the blank] seem to have the interest" and you just limit the GV role. That doesn't mean isolating them, removing them from all interaction. Just means figure something out where less GVs can still help win the battle.

I agree with you Krusty....

There were a couple of times where we were wiped out entirely only minutes into the first sortie. That is seven guys that lost a life in less than ten to fifteen minutes into the frame. With only two lifes my main concern after that was effectively utilizing our last life. Not only from a victory stand point but making sure the people flying under me had a enjoyable frame. Did I make a risky plan with big payoffs, heck yes, with a big reward if successful. Did I curse myself for putting our aircraft in that position without escort, heck yes! After we waited our five minutes we took back off, with escort and slightly bruised egos.

Whats the moral of this story?

Without escort the B-25's were sitting ducks, even with 14,000 feet of altitude. Every plane in the Axis arsenal would likely try to kill us on sight, often succeeding. Our only viable defense was a descent sized escort and remaining undetected. Each time we were found without escort we died en mass, regardless of plane.

Now if you compare B-25s and ground vehicles, in many ways they are a like. Killing them becomes quite easy with the right tools at your disposal. Just about any fighter can dispatch a bomber rather easily (unescorted). Similarly any plane with a bomb can take out a tank rather easily if bombing under friendly skies. In clear terms they are sitting ducks should the enemy bring the proper tools. Now in the interests of gameplay the ground vehicles are protected from 90% of the enemy forces. While the bombers remain vulnerable to any fighter that happens across us.

So WHY I ask, do ground vehicles complain about having to dodge 10% of the aircraft in the game. Especially considering I have to avoid nearly every plane in the game or risk a quick death. On top of that we get two less lives, no free lives in support roles, and nearly two hour flights at times.

The more I hear this the more I feel the gv's want a sterile environment to fight in, with no outside influence.

I can hear it now," Hey look, there is a enemy plane." "Dont worry about him, he cant touch us."

Four words people," FLAK VEHICLES" and "AIR COVER".....

Learn them, utilize them, value them....

Soon the only explosions you will be hearing are the enemies tanks and aircraft meeting a quick end.

Strip