We played the experimental Faxorbat 4b version last night. Let me know what you think about the mission!
One thing I am well aware of. This mission layout does expose the vulnerabilities of 4B when loaded in MRAPs. Its enough of a logistics nightmare when you have one team per hunter. All in all though I thought we handled it well in the end.
fa3_c63_fooddrive
Re: fa3_c63_fooddrive
I still like faxorbat4b even with the weaknesses to be honest.
But yeah, splitting sections across MRAPS is awkward. Far worse though, is that when we spawned, our section was split between an MRAP driven by someone in the section (where Eagle_eye was) and one driven by someone in another group entirely (Ferrard in this case). So Eagle's section's team blue with their ARs were in a completely different vehicle being driven by someone else. Not optimal. The spawns might need tweaking so that even if the section is split (as it inevitably will be), both halves are in vehicles under the section's control. Otherwise you're futzing about with vehicle-v-group channel unnecessarily.
Oh, and that goes double for when the vehicles are operating post-dismount as a bronnegruppa (darn, but I like that word). Nothing like having some enemy's head in your dialled-in sights only for the driver to pull 1m back and block your line of fire with a house before you can perforate the guy. Especially when that guy's in a bunker and you can't use comms with the driver (why the heck doesn't the direct channel allow this? And does direct even work properly on the folk server? Not the first time that thing's acted funny at me).
Faxorbat4b-related things aside, I enjoyed this one. Last nights run was a little hairy because of the vehicle issues and comms fun, but it's a nicely set up mission with meetable challenges and still gave funny moments (like when I was all set up to return fire and Eagle asked if I was still alive, which was my first clue that the rest of my section had once again run away without telling me they were withdrawing and I was inadvertently lone-wolfing it
)
It did kindof feel like there wasn't a lot of enemy in the actual FOB though. Might just be novice thinking, but I'd have thought a FOB would have more soldiers in it than a cache? It felt like it was the other way round.
But yeah, splitting sections across MRAPS is awkward. Far worse though, is that when we spawned, our section was split between an MRAP driven by someone in the section (where Eagle_eye was) and one driven by someone in another group entirely (Ferrard in this case). So Eagle's section's team blue with their ARs were in a completely different vehicle being driven by someone else. Not optimal. The spawns might need tweaking so that even if the section is split (as it inevitably will be), both halves are in vehicles under the section's control. Otherwise you're futzing about with vehicle-v-group channel unnecessarily.
Oh, and that goes double for when the vehicles are operating post-dismount as a bronnegruppa (darn, but I like that word). Nothing like having some enemy's head in your dialled-in sights only for the driver to pull 1m back and block your line of fire with a house before you can perforate the guy. Especially when that guy's in a bunker and you can't use comms with the driver (why the heck doesn't the direct channel allow this? And does direct even work properly on the folk server? Not the first time that thing's acted funny at me).
Faxorbat4b-related things aside, I enjoyed this one. Last nights run was a little hairy because of the vehicle issues and comms fun, but it's a nicely set up mission with meetable challenges and still gave funny moments (like when I was all set up to return fire and Eagle asked if I was still alive, which was my first clue that the rest of my section had once again run away without telling me they were withdrawing and I was inadvertently lone-wolfing it
)It did kindof feel like there wasn't a lot of enemy in the actual FOB though. Might just be novice thinking, but I'd have thought a FOB would have more soldiers in it than a cache? It felt like it was the other way round.
guns.ie ● stochasticgeometry.ie ● weak.ie
Don't tell mom I'm a pilot, she thinks I play piano in a whorehouse
Don't tell mom I'm a pilot, she thinks I play piano in a whorehouse
Re: fa3_c63_fooddrive
Yeah sparks I think the problem in this case came from 2 things. First up was our general unfamiliarity with the sections mounted in 2 trucks, and the other was that we werent slotted for full sections. The layout I made for this mission with 4B is as follows:
Squad - 4xHMG hunters:
I do think that things were cool when we had 1 truck and the rest of the section dismounted. I think in the future what I would like to do with the sections would be:
Squad - 2xHMG hunters and 2xUnarmed Hunters
With regards to the FOB. There was a full mechanised squad inside the FOB, along with quite a few garissoned troops. (Or at least there was supposed to be). I don't know did the HMGs just kill them all before we could assault or what, but there did seem to be a few missing. Also there was meant to be a reserve mechanised squad which should have shown up about 10 minutes in, however I have a funny feeling it decided to ignore its waypoints and head straight at us at mission start, and was destroyed by mortar fire, because by the time I died it was nowhere to be found, and we definitely didnt see it roll into the FOB where it should have.
Squad - 4xHMG hunters:
- Vic 1: Section 1 SCL, Section 1 blue team (Gren,AR,AR)
- Vic 2: Section 1 red team (RAT,R,R), Squad Medic
- Vic 3: Section 2 SCL, Section 2 blue team (Gren,AR,AR)
- Vic 4: Section 2 red team (RAT,R,R), Squad Lead
I do think that things were cool when we had 1 truck and the rest of the section dismounted. I think in the future what I would like to do with the sections would be:
Squad - 2xHMG hunters and 2xUnarmed Hunters
- Vic 1(Unarmed): Section 1 SCL, Grenadier (Driving), AR, AR
- Vic 2(HMG): RAT, Driver, Gunner, Squad Medic
- Vic 3(Unarmed): Section 2 SCL, Grenadier (Driving), AR, AR
- Vic 4(HMG): RAT, Driver, Gunner, Squad Lead
- Squad lead gives orders to move to dismount point
- Section 1 is in charge of moving the convoy, FTL gives instructions/guides the grenadier, everyone else follows
- Once the dismount point is reached, Vic 1 and 3 dismount, RAT either stays with the hunter (and is the commander of their "IFV") or dismounts and joins FTL.
- FTL now has 2 elements, Blue and Truck to worry about. He assigns himself and RAT to blue/truck as needed just like a normal section
- There are still 2 unarmed hunters at the dismount for further transport later, or squad lead can move into one with his medic and move up behind the fighting force.
With regards to the FOB. There was a full mechanised squad inside the FOB, along with quite a few garissoned troops. (Or at least there was supposed to be). I don't know did the HMGs just kill them all before we could assault or what, but there did seem to be a few missing. Also there was meant to be a reserve mechanised squad which should have shown up about 10 minutes in, however I have a funny feeling it decided to ignore its waypoints and head straight at us at mission start, and was destroyed by mortar fire, because by the time I died it was nowhere to be found, and we definitely didnt see it roll into the FOB where it should have.
Re: fa3_c63_fooddrive
Not saying it wasn't, because as you know my hardware is one step shy of a computer museum donation even with the SSD, but when I spawned Carson was already at the wheel and I got the impression that that was where Arma had put him. Is it possible that the correct vic/section assignment is dependant on the equipment level startup parameter or something similarly annoying?Eagle_Eye wrote:I think what happened last night was that as people got moving, Carson hopped into the driver seat to get us moving, so we ended up with a bit of confusion.
They were cool in one of our trucks, but in the other (where I was along with squad lead), we still had comms trouble.I do think that things were cool when we had 1 truck and the rest of the section dismounted.
Yup, and that's what testing's for. Even with the whoopsies, it was still fun.Again its just one of those things that you find out while experimenting.
I thought it felt a bit easy allright. Only two of us shot in the spleen taking a base? That's not rightWith regards to the FOB. There was a full mechanised squad inside the FOB, along with quite a few garissoned troops. (Or at least there was supposed to be). I don't know did the HMGs just kill them all before we could assault or what, but there did seem to be a few missing.
guns.ie ● stochasticgeometry.ie ● weak.ie
Don't tell mom I'm a pilot, she thinks I play piano in a whorehouse
Don't tell mom I'm a pilot, she thinks I play piano in a whorehouse
Re: fa3_c63_fooddrive
Remember, in motorised scenarios, there's no reason why a whole squad has to be mounted in the same vehicle type. Whilst the majority of a squad is mounted in a truck, a single colour team (FAXORBAT-4B) or fireteam (official ORBAT) from the squad can be given an armed Hunter-type vehicle.
Personally, I am not at all a fan of missions that give the platoon high numbers of Hunter-type vehicles. Our AOs are rarely big enough to warrant this level of mobility, and our mission-makers are discouraged from making overly-long 'advance to battle' opening phases. Moreover, unarmed Hunter-style vehicles can quickly become a logistics nightmare, robbing the line of a rifle for no real benefit.
My advice to mission makers is: think about how many vehicles the mission really needs, not how many the platoon would need during an imaginary drive across Iraq (that isn't actually going to happen in the mission).
Personally, I am not at all a fan of missions that give the platoon high numbers of Hunter-type vehicles. Our AOs are rarely big enough to warrant this level of mobility, and our mission-makers are discouraged from making overly-long 'advance to battle' opening phases. Moreover, unarmed Hunter-style vehicles can quickly become a logistics nightmare, robbing the line of a rifle for no real benefit.
My advice to mission makers is: think about how many vehicles the mission really needs, not how many the platoon would need during an imaginary drive across Iraq (that isn't actually going to happen in the mission).
Re: fa3_c63_fooddrive
Yeah, this platoon loadout was definitely more from my own idea of what would be cool than what actually works. Lightning strike (which has an identical blufor orbat) was my first mission for FA, and Im even still learning what makes fun missions that will run with a modicum of sanity.
Re: fa3_c63_fooddrive
I wouldn't stress. I would give this further bit of advice, though:
A mission maker has to think up a whole scenario, including the backstory and an idea of what's happening in the wider battlespace (i.e. beyond the AO). It's this knowledge that helps the mission maker make selections that are consistent. The player only has to deal with a subset of scenario, and whilst he'll quickly spot something that's inconsistent (because it's odd and/or immersion-breaking), you'd be surprised at how much will be taken 'on trust', by implication, or even by brazen exposition in the briefing!
Let's say you stick with the whole Gen Kill thing of a platoon mounted in Hunters. You can explain how most of the vics have been left back at the staging point, and the platoon will enter mostly on foot with a few armed Hunters for fire support. You still have the concept of a recon platoon, you still have the mobile (but fragile) firepower, but you've eliminated the frustrating mini-game of 'move the unarmed Hunter' from the mission.
Ultimately, I like to think of the towns in cowboy movies: only the shop-fronts need to be real - it doesn't matter if they're just 2D, because the AO that counts is the main street where the gunfight happens.
A mission maker has to think up a whole scenario, including the backstory and an idea of what's happening in the wider battlespace (i.e. beyond the AO). It's this knowledge that helps the mission maker make selections that are consistent. The player only has to deal with a subset of scenario, and whilst he'll quickly spot something that's inconsistent (because it's odd and/or immersion-breaking), you'd be surprised at how much will be taken 'on trust', by implication, or even by brazen exposition in the briefing!
Let's say you stick with the whole Gen Kill thing of a platoon mounted in Hunters. You can explain how most of the vics have been left back at the staging point, and the platoon will enter mostly on foot with a few armed Hunters for fire support. You still have the concept of a recon platoon, you still have the mobile (but fragile) firepower, but you've eliminated the frustrating mini-game of 'move the unarmed Hunter' from the mission.
Ultimately, I like to think of the towns in cowboy movies: only the shop-fronts need to be real - it doesn't matter if they're just 2D, because the AO that counts is the main street where the gunfight happens.