Kursk next?

[Tank-Ace]

With the crickets chirping from the GV slots in the last scenario, I'd be hard pressed to believe you could get enough for it to matter.  A dedicated GV war was involved and I think we had 4 total folks sign up for GVs and ended up having the fliers have to drive tanks even if they didn't care to.

Very noble of you to volunteer for leading Panthers

Get yourself a bunch of Sherman 75 drivers and volunteer for that instead

From what I gather, nobody did much recruiting in the MA's. Hell, when I brought secnarious up over country channel once, a lot of people asked what a scenario was.



As to the other, I'm an expirienced GV'er, I know tactics, I'm good at coordinating with other groups. Really, you want your best people in the best tanks, since they'll get the most out of them.

Say an expirienced player will get 60% more out of his vehicle than an inexpirienced one. The Panther is worth immeasurably more than a Panzer IV in combat, and if you put someone expirienced in one, his value is also immeasurably more than if you had put him in a Panzer IV.


Not that I would reject the M4/Panzer IV command if there was someone more expirienced to take the Panthers, but it would make sense to take command of the Panthers if we're strapped for expirienced GV'ers.

[Brooke]

Other than Stalin's Fourth (which is basically a GV scenario), WSDG had the least complaining and the most compliments of any GV action in a scenario.  I think that GV action in a scenario is a lot of fun, and I think that the method of implementation in WSDG was almost optimal.  The only change I would make is that we do have dedicated GV spots, but be realistic about it -- probably only about 5 per side -- and every pilot gets lives in GV's, but only after his aircraft lives are used up.  That way, no pilot is pressed into service in a GV at all.  This does have problems in that one side can end up having a lot more GV's than the other if they lose a lot of pilots more quickly, but that is the least of all disadvantages, I think.  You can counter it by having the GV element of the scenario either be scored separately, or not count for as much in scoring as the air portion.

[Ruah]

I would GV in an event, but honestly, the event starts at 2 am and ends 5 am as it is - unless the times are shifted 3/4 hours earlier - there is no way I can go further then 5 am. . . I am already screwing my weekends (when combined with the FSO that is a 4 - 5 am sat). 

[Krusty]

GVs cannot operate in isolation. They operate at the whim of their air support. If they own the skies, their GVs roam free.


Remember where the GVers threatened to walk off because they were being killed, with any kind of airplane within 10km of them? Showed how petty and pathetic the GV whining can be, simply because they were "spotted" by aircraft overhead, so that that aircraft's ground forces could attack hidden tankers.

The plain of the matter is that you can't have GVs free from action/reaction of the overall arena at large. The air war will play a large part in the ground war. If you force them into being isolated with arbitrary rules you simply nullify and ignore valid results in the air to justify meaningless GV results.

Meaningless because none of them may have ever happened that same way if they had to interact with air power in the region at the time.

I have plenty of thoughts on the matter regarding balancing, points integration, and so forth, but none of it involves (nor should it) keeping the GVs separate from the goings-on of the rest of the SEA during the same frame.

[Tank-Ace]

GVs cannot operate in isolation. They operate at the whim of their air support. If they own the skies, their GVs roam free.


Remember where the GVers threatened to walk off because they were being killed, with any kind of airplane within 10km of them? Showed how petty and pathetic the GV whining can be, simply because they were "spotted" by aircraft overhead, so that that aircraft's ground forces could attack hidden tankers.

The plain of the matter is that you can't have GVs free from action/reaction of the overall arena at large. The air war will play a large part in the ground war. If you force them into being isolated with arbitrary rules you simply nullify and ignore valid results in the air to justify meaningless GV results.

Meaningless because none of them may have ever happened that same way if they had to interact with air power in the region at the time.

I have plenty of thoughts on the matter regarding balancing, points integration, and so forth, but none of it involves (nor should it) keeping the GVs separate from the goings-on of the rest of the SEA during the same frame.

My only issue is that the Gv'ers don't have the capacity to affect the aircraft that they did in real life, and if anything, the ablity of aircraft to affect the GV'ers is slightly exagerated.

In real life if you pushed forward and brought an airfield into artillery range, they had to relocate. In real life, if your unit came under air attack, you headed for thick tree cover and were safe from everything save carpet bombing. Or you hid amongst already knocked out vehicles. In real life, if your forces advanced significantly, your airforce could move up closer to the front as well. In real life, aircraft NEVER had icons to locate vehicles.


Honestly, special events would be the best place to disable GV icons for aircraft. Why? Because they can identify enemy from friendly units visually.

[Guppy35]

My only issue is that the Gv'ers don't have the capacity to affect the aircraft that they did in real life, and if anything, the ablity of aircraft to affect the GV'ers is slightly exagerated.

In real life if you pushed forward and brought an airfield into artillery range, they had to relocate. In real life, if your unit came under air attack, you headed for thick tree cover and were safe from everything save carpet bombing. Or you hid amongst already knocked out vehicles. In real life, if your forces advanced significantly, your airforce could move up closer to the front as well. In real life, aircraft NEVER had icons to locate vehicles.


Honestly, special events would be the best place to disable GV icons for aircraft. Why? Because they can identify enemy from friendly units visually.

Tell that to my guy who took a Panther 75 shell right into his 38.  And tell that to the 14 fighter bombers Waystin shot down in his Wirble during that epic fight over the town.

[KCDitto]

That fight was EPIC.

Waystin really kicked butt that day.

[Spikes]

Tell that to my guy who took a Panther 75 shell right into his 38.  And tell that to the 14 fighter bombers Waystin shot down in his Wirble during that epic fight over the town.

Operator error.

[Guppy35]

Operator error.

The funny part of it all is I'm afraid Tank-Ace is trying to connect the MA world to an event.   As one who was flying a fighter bomber that frame, we weren't just looking for tanks.  We had broken cloud down to the deck.  Watched a 262 lawndart because of those as he was trying to shoot Allied fighter bombers.  With the short icon range for planes too, you really had to have your head on the swivel to keep an eye out for higher LW fighters that were covering the tankers.  With all that if you spotted a tank, you'd lose it in all the chaos going on really fast as you tried to get in position for a decent drop etc.

To suggest the edge was with the planes is just silly

When Waystin had his run of 14 I never saw him.  Myself and 2 other 38s were fighting D9s on the deck.  I'd managed to get 2 D9s and was finally in a position that I 'might' be able to get some speed up and possibly survive when 'bam!', down I went to Wirble fire as did the 38 that was tailing me. 

[OOZ662]

I'll also attest to the icons working well as they were. From the one A2G sortie I got, it was very difficult keeping track of advancing GVs and we had complete air superiority. The fact that a 262 flew less than 2,000 yards past our 8 M3s parked in the same set of trees, tipped a wing directly at us, but never saw us was a great testament to that.
And, unlike how Krusty loves to ignore, we didn't have bombers "spotting" vehicles with 500lb bombs this time. The stipulations, although a tiny bit complicated, worked well; if you weren't a level bomber and you were allowed to carry eggs, you could knock over a GV. That's fine with me. Especially since it played into the strategy of deciding how many eggs went on tanks versus town buildings.

Why would anyone fight to keep Seattle?

But if we lost Seattle, how would White Base hide from the Zeon in the King Dome?
...wait

[waystin2]

Tell that to my guy who took a Panther 75 shell right into his 38.  And tell that to the 14 fighter bombers Waystin shot down in his Wirble during that epic fight over the town.

Yep, blame it on me.  I single-handedly made sure that GV's will never be used in a scenario again.

In all seriousness though, your answer is correct in it's assessment.   Not only from the perspective of the GV'er affecting aircraft in the scenario, but factor in how difficult it was to attack the Allied armor from the air with Dora's.  We did it, but it was not a cake walk.  Hard to spot the vehicles, which makes harder lines up for egg drops.  Not to mention dancing with pony's and 38's while you are trying to attack the GVs. 

[Tank-Ace]

The funny part of it all is I'm afraid Tank-Ace is trying to connect the MA world to an event.   As one who was flying a fighter bomber that frame, we weren't just looking for tanks.  We had broken cloud down to the deck.  Watched a 262 lawndart because of those as he was trying to shoot Allied fighter bombers.  With the short icon range for planes too, you really had to have your head on the swivel to keep an eye out for higher LW fighters that were covering the tankers.  With all that if you spotted a tank, you'd lose it in all the chaos going on really fast as you tried to get in position for a decent drop etc.

To suggest the edge was with the planes is just silly

I'm not suggesting the edge is always with the planes. I'm only suggesting that when at a state of air-denial, as opposed to air-equality, the aircraft have an exagerated ablity to locate and destroy tanks. Knocked out tanks don't stay on the battlefield to provide camoflauge for an operational tank. And even if they did, you still have your 21st century IFF systems to tell which are still active whenever you close to within 600yds or when a Storch is present.

[Guppy35]

I'm not suggesting the edge is always with the planes. I'm only suggesting that when at a state of air-denial, as opposed to air-equality, the aircraft have an exagerated ablity to locate and destroy tanks. Knocked out tanks don't stay on the battlefield to provide camoflauge for an operational tank. And even if they did, you still have your 21st century IFF systems to tell which are still active whenever you close to within 600yds or when a Storch is present.

And I'm saying based on our most recent GV vs Air experience in a scenario setting, that just isn't true.

[KCDitto]

I was in a Dora at teh end of the last frame.....

I had a bomb. I flew around looking for an M4 that was in the area, I could not find it.

I am not a level bomber, I drop almost verticle. With that, and the new ICON range and the snow on the trees and white camo on that M4. Plus roaming P-38's and Temests. I hit nothing with bombs. I went back and looked at the film and I was 500 yards from him and he was hiding under a tree with white camo.

Did TankAce participate in the WSDG?

Seems like he did not as the things we are talking about did not happen. I am not a GV'r, even in the MA and had no desire to do so in WSDG, even though my Unit was given Panthers. I preffered to stay in my Dora.

The problem that i heard most was that all the guys begging for a GV scenario DID NOT SHOW UP for it! Why are the CM's going to spend all that time setting up a scenario, and the numbers SUCK.

They are never going to make eveyone happy, that is a fact!

SO best set it up to get the most participation, and that goes for time slot as well.

I would suggest that if you want a particular set up, join the CM team and BUILD it! If not, just show up and have fun with what you get........ I want to fly JG/26, so I do, even if the plane they use is not what I want.

Not trying to stir it up, this is my 100th post  YAY   

[Spikes]

My only issue is that the Gv'ers don't have the capacity to affect the aircraft that they did in real life, and if anything, the ablity of aircraft to affect the GV'ers is slightly exagerated.

In real life if you pushed forward and brought an airfield into artillery range, they had to relocate. In real life, if your unit came under air attack, you headed for thick tree cover and were safe from everything save carpet bombing. Or you hid amongst already knocked out vehicles. In real life, if your forces advanced significantly, your airforce could move up closer to the front as well. In real life, aircraft NEVER had icons to locate vehicles.


Honestly, special events would be the best place to disable GV icons for aircraft. Why? Because they can identify enemy from friendly units visually.

This is a game.