FSO: Tunisia - No GVs FR3

[noTch]

I would be in!   I hoped to draw GV duty this FSO , and am disappointed we will not have a chance to!

Ditto from JV44 Butcher Birds. after messing up & not putting GV's in our preferences on the first go around, we
were really looking forward to mixing it up in some heavy steel   Well maybe next time

[Bino]

Personally, I prefer airplanes. 

If there's enough popular support for the idea, I would not object to including tanks.  But please do it in a different way from what was tried in Tunisia.  I would NOT like it if I was REQUIRED to spend time in a tank early in the frame.  Making tanks optional is fine, but please do not create a setup that could force me into a tank.

[ghostdancer]

Bino noted and that was why it was 45 minutes and then second life in a plane.

The same argument can be made about being forced into flying certain plains like the Ju87. I didn't require them in this setup but I have in others. So you can say I forced some people into planes they don't want to fly at all. Recognizing this is why a second life is offered.

Same holds true on the fleet battles. We know that some people don't care to be put on cruisers and destroyers and engage each other. So again it is limited to a certain amount of time and a second life is offered.

If GVs are required having people load out in them at the end of the frame doesn't work. Simply put you can't go fly planes until T+115 then land and load out in GVs. First off a person might still be engaged at that time. Next he might not be able to get home from a previous engagement at that time. Meaning the GV battle would have to wait until everybody was on the ground. Finally if you were killed earlier to say T+115 are you really going to wait around x many minutes to load out in a tank? That reasoning was why I shortened the tank battle to T+45. Possibly it should be shortened to an even smaller window than that. It is a consideration. But putting at the end of the frame is more problematic than the beginning.

The last part of the equation is that when GVs are in a design (irregardless of mission type, objective, etc.) is for squads that like them and hate them to speak up. I think CiC's would much rather put a squad who likes GVs in them than one that doesn't. Of course there is always the chance that all squads on one side says I don't like them and then CiC just has to choose. But usually there is at least one squad that likes them or doesn't mind them.

[Tull]

Ghostdancer,

    I have worked for the Army and National Guard in Simulations both virtual and constructive for the past 17 years.  Scenerio design is not an easy task.  Y'all have developed an effective design for GV integration in to a complex scenario environment.  All have to add to this thread is WELL DONE! 

Tull
XO 367th FG

"They're trying to kill me," Yossarian told him calmly.
"No one's trying to kill you," Clevinger cried.
"Then why are they shooting at me?" Yossarian asked.
"They're shooting at everyone," Clevinger answered. "They're trying to kill everyone."
"And what difference does that make?"

[49Jester]

GV's?... sign us up, we'll willing try anything.... anytime..     

[caldera]

I'd much rather bomb GVs than drive them and sure wouldn't mind being forced into the Ju-87.