E-Male

Comments are all very insightful and 'on the money' here. Comms were indeed a mess, organization poor, tactics weak. We were quite a bit blindsided when the game started prematurely, without warning, prior to the CO finishing strategy and briefing. This should not have been allowed to happen and we should have immediately called for a restart.

Nonetheless, as I said, there is no doubt that we had our butts handed to us, this I do not dispute.

I only object to the accusation of 'gaming' which implies intent that I did not have. Without clear knowledge of what time remained, although expecting that time was short, I executed a strategy that took into account probable weakness in defense, and won a key objective.

Calling the honest intent of the opposition 'gaming' is unwarranted in this instance. My intent was based on the simple and honourable premise that, as Churchhill once said, one must never quit.

__________________
E-Male

Oakley

I see what you were saying with the rest of the post E-Male. I think its safe to say though, that most (if not all) of Opfor had never played the mission before.

__________________

E-Male

A good point. I have deleted my remarks above on acquired knowledge, so as to not muddy the waters here as to the real issue -- intent.

__________________
E-Male

Dslyecxi

The situation the developed as a result of the tactics you chose to employ was a "gamed" ending. It "won a key objective" only, and I stress this again, only because there was less than 15 seconds to react to it before the mission ended. Whether there was intent to do this knowing that the clock was about to run out is a secondary point. For an experienced player, it's easy to know that the time is about to run short - the mission cites 90 minute length, and the (detailed) player list will display the running time. If this is not something you look at when playing a mission like this, you should, or find some other way to track the time.

If you are saying that the fact that the objective was capped at the last second as pure coincidence, and that intent was not there to "game" it, that's fine. The result was a gamey situation, however. Perhaps the mission will be corrected to account for that in the future.

You take offense at being accussed of gaming it, because you're proud of what you feel you accomplished. The street runs both ways - we were proud of what we had accomplished, and having your (BLUFOR) teammates claim that it was "a tie" (as they did at mission end) is equally as frustrating to hear. It wasn't a tie, the last cap was inconsequential, and the only reason it had any impact at all was because of the lack of mission planning for that eventuality.

The admin had to leave. In the situation he was in, whether he logged out or not, it was going to start automatically. Given that it did start, and there had been 5-10 mins of briefing time at that point, it would have been reasonable to just tell BLUFOR to stay put for a few minutes and sketch out a plan. A plan could be developed over the course of the mission as well - after all, it was 1h30m including respawns. Had you asked in global chat for OPFOR to stop moving and give blufor a few minutes to plan, I know at the very least that the ShackTac players would have respected that, and I assume that our TG fellows would have followed suit as well. That's something to consider for the future.

At the end, though - you talk of intent. If your intent was not to game it, and it was just sheer coincidence that it happened with amazingly suspicious timing, then so be it - you say it wasn't your intent, so I'll take you at that. It still doesn't change anything else about the mission, or the fact that the result of those tactics was a gamey end state. Is that a reflection on you personally? I don't think so. Does it reflect poorly on the mission designer? Again, no - particularly since it did not influence the final scoring. Is it gamey, though? Yes. Should it be addressed? It would be interesting, certainly.

__________________

Sam Hoy

I think its quite obviously a tie. Both sides clearly triumphed even if only in an experiential aspect. I was not there, however, people certainly have entailed very vivid recollections of these events. It is quite apparent OPFOR did exceptional defending their objectives while simultaneously disrupting supply routes and destroying enemy heavy armor. Conversely, BLUFOR with the odds overtly stacked against them from a mission standpoint. For instance, having to attack into a dense urban environment against a determined and equally strong opponent. Furthermore, with the match starting before they were fully prepared and the lose of their platoon leader in the middle of the round. Even with these challenges BLUFOR was able to masterfully flank the enemy and at least temporarily, but perhaps permanently secure one objective. Certainly we can speculate that OPFOR would have retaken the objective, however, we cannot discount the possibility that with BLUFOR's apt leadership they could have potentially consolidated their defenses and held the objective indefinitely. With both teams executing such effective strategies it is a tad untoward to call one team a definitive loser especially in the context of the quality and quantity of lessons learned from this exercise. Quite frankly, the fact that people are trying to systematically and semantically determine a winner and loser is distracting from the accomplishments of both teams. Moreover, it is distracting from the larger strategic discourse about effective and ineffective tactics implemented during this round of play.

E-Male

Does the goal of the game somehow shift at the end of the game?

The arguments provided above would effectively free the defending side from the responsibility to maintain the security of the defense at the most critical time, thus providing them with more force ratio in forward positions. Thus the advantages of terrain and force ratio go to the defending side, while the objective is claimed to be off limits at the very moment when time is of the essence.

I understand gaming, and have no desire to see it take hold here at TG. Yet the argument against last minute gambits that probe an enemy's weakness only serve to further reinforce the superior postion of the defender, by virtue of game design itself.

The execution of a last minute tactic which required preconditions that were maintained by the attacking force is hardly 'last minute'. It took a coordinated effort, anticipated enemy response, and took far more than a minute to execute. Indeed, it seems that our strategy was highly logical and should have been anticipated by the defending command. I fully expected such, and was surprised to find the objective altogether empty. Massive failure to defend.

By shifting the definition of the goal (hold the objective until the end), one eliminates the possibility of intentional deception, drawing the enemy away from objectives and well planned last minute objective gains. While all these elements were not present last night, I would caution against too quickly accepting such a narrow definition of 'gaming' as is offered above. It would eliminate otherwise entirely valid strategies, and detract from a more 'reality-based' approach to ArmA.

I realize reality is not the absolute guide for our play within ArmA. Nonetheless, how can we suggest that leaving a critical objective undefended so as gain more force ratio is better than doing all that is necessary to gain the objective within the general rules of warfare?

The alternative definition of 'gaming' in this instance and as offered above, would require new SOPs, rules, or rewriting the script. It would also ensure that the defending force is allowed to shift forces off of defense and on to offense (or forward defense) in the last quarter of the game. Yet by simply accepting the objective as it is -- defend -- and the measure as it is -- the final end-state of the game, we thereby reduce the probability that the defender will gain an advantage of force ratio by abdicating from the responsibility to defend the objectives.

Mind you, that was the first time I played what was a very enjoyable and challenging map, and I may be overlooking more obvious issues.

Lets do it again soon!

__________________
E-Male

Dslyecxi

You'll have to expound on this, as I'm not sure what you're referring to or getting at with this comment.

I think you must have misunderstood what I wrote if your conclusion is that "the objective is claimed to be off-limits at the very moment when time is of the essence". That is not my argument at all. My argument is simply that you cannot claim a tie, or a partial victory, when your "tactical flanking maneuver" was only successful because the defending side was restricted from reacting to it due to time constraints, and so many other factors indicated a massive OPFOR victory.

The defending team is free to orient itself however it wants. We had limits on how far we could leave our base, as part of the mission design. Bear in mind that we are speaking of a playthrough of the mission where the following happened:
1. The defending side destroyed both of the MBTs on the attacking side within 10 minutes of the mission starting.
2. The defending side killed far more than it took in casualties, and largely kept the attacking side out of Corazol.
3. The defending side routed the enemy from one of the objectives when the attackers made it to it. I don't know if it happened more than once - the only time I remember, it was back in our hands within minutes.
4. The defending side never lost both objectives.
5. The only significant accomplishment that the attacking side did was "capturing" an unoccupied building in the last seconds of the mission. See #3 for why this is not the "end of all things".

I understand that you feel that this infiltration was an accomplishment on your team's part. However, from our perspective, and from the facts of the mission, it did not seem very significant. It didn't change the outcome. It didn't secure victory. It was a last-second building-grab that would have been defeated if only there had been more than 15 seconds to react to it. We had already reacted to and emerged victorious in a similar scenario earlier in the mission. I can't jump for joy at a success that was simply a fireteam worth of people sneaking through an empty part of the city and making it into a building. What would have happened next would be where success or failure would be known, but we never got to that part, so it's all conjecture.

As to it being a "massive failure to defend", perhaps it was a massive failure to defend in the style that you expected. If you think that every objective is always going to be guarded, especially when numbers are thin, you are forcing yourself into a very narrow-minded view of How Tactics Should Be Employed[tm], and it's going to result in a lot of surprise when people adapt to the situation in unexpected ways. We deliberately left that building lightly guarded (there was a QRF nearby, even at the end, that was able to deal with anything that might happen to it). Keeping it lightly guarded freed up valuable personnel to fight the picket fight (which you must admit, simply ripped BLUFOR apart and kept them from decisively entering the city) as well as defend our other, more significant structure.

If we were talking about some epic last-second push that involved capturing both buildings at the same time, perhaps this would be more significant. That wasn't the case. It was just one building, it didn't have any long-standing tactical significance (since it did not last for more than 15 seconds). I think you may be putting a little bit too much weight into this accomplishment and missing the bigger picture - the other 89m45s of the mission. I would be interested to hear what the "narrow definition of gaming" you believe you read above is.

Perhaps if the server had been full-up in playercount, defending only one objective would make less sense. However, with the reduced numbers, it made much more sense to operate the way we did.

You have an interesting view of how things should be. So much weight is being placed into a last-second move that didn't actually seize victory. It was a building grab. It didn't change the fact that the tanks were long dead. It didn't change how many blufor were dead relative to opfor. It didn't change the fact that it would require both objectives to win the mission. It wasn't very significant by itself, and there wasn't enough time in the mission remaining to turn it from "took" to "took and hold" or "took and was repulsed". Your argument seems to be that since the "buzzer has rung", the mission is over, even if the scripting did not account for that eventuality, and even if it was reasonable to expect that, in reality, the fight would certainly not be over until it was conclusively done. The "buzzer, done!" sounds a lot more like sporting events than the "real war" you allude to in your posts.

At the end of the day, I think the issue at hand is more of a scripting/mission design one than anything else.

I had a fair enough time in the mission. It was too big for the playercount, I think, and too long, but it was still generally enjoyable. There were some amusing situations that occurred throughout it and kept it fun. However, as I've said before, I don't think that a minor event at the end of the mission magically made the mission a tie, based on all of the factors that one must consider. Opfor won. Blufor got a building and probably would have lost it if the mission went on. It seemed like a gamey ending, but since the scoring system gave opfor the victory, it's not that big of a deal. If Blufor had pulled off a cool victory, I'd be the first to congratulate them on it. I don't think that was the case here, and I certainly don't think it was a tie. But, hey... YMMV.

__________________

Burncycle

I would like to point out that the western objective was never "undefended" even though it had no permanent defense attached to the particular building. As I described in an earlier post (and as Dsl described above) while we had a permanent defense force at the eastern objective, defense of the western objective was tasked to a QRF that was to respond to any report of enemy contact behind our forward line of contact inside the city.

This was done for a variety of reasons (mostly manpower, it served as a force multiplier). While some BLUFOR may be able to get boots onto the objective proper for a short period of time, they were never able to get enough people in place to actually hold it (which is clearly the spirit of the objectives) once the roaming team responded, and this strategy was successful for the first 89 minutes of the game. While the objectives do not shift or change in that last minute (I dunno anyone who claimed that), the ability for our team to execute this strategy does naturally -- and that's fair enough, the plan to grab the objective at the last second worked and on a technicality (the round ended) that particular objective was not in our hands at the 90 minute mark, but when viewed as a whole that does not make it a tie in my eyes.

For the record, we did discuss at several points the possibility of BLUFOR planning on sneaking a small team along the northern route after the southern axis of advance became the primary fighting area for the last hour of the game (as I mentioned in an earlier post) because we could see no other reason why the BLUFOR team would keep going into the southern route and getting destroyed. It was determined that the mobile reserve could deal with it however, and had the game continued I'm confident they would have just as they had the first 89 minutes.

It was indeed still fun to play through

E-Male

I am not making any claim to have 'seized victory'. Yet your insistence that 'It was a building grab' is similar to saying 'it was just a puck in the net' -- a net undefended at a critical moment.

The issue, in the words of Monty Python, of who killed who more, is also a questionable measure of success, as it is not uncommon in war to win a victory at a much higher ratio of casaulties than the enemy. I have no argument with the obvious, that Opfor played a better game. I only argue with the conclusion that they won. They did not. They merely tied after suffering a needless loss to an open net.

The main point I made above, regarding the force ratios gained by an 'open net' and its impact on the outcome, which combined with the reasoning behind 'no last minute rushes on open nets' still stands, in my mind, and remains the critical issue herein.

It must remain the end-state that determines the outcome, or the function of objectives is rendered immaterial.

If the defender is not in a position to defend until the very end, then the loss (and the win or tie) is merited. I strongly disagree with the attempt to dismiss the tie as anything other than a legitimate tie. Both conditions must be accepted as valid and definitive, time-limits and objectives. Yet the post-game analysis above continues to dismiss the validity of these metrics.

Yes, you killed more of us then we killed you, but you failed to hold onto both objectives within the allotted time frame. You would measure kills as having more wieght than objectives, when war in the end is all about obtaining and holding onto real estate. The fact that it happened at the end of the round merely indicates a failure on OpFors' part to keep their piorities straight -- hold and defend at all cost.

If we conceive of the objective as also holding a nuclear warhead, or the receipe for Coca-Cola (perhaps of greater value!), then we see that the failure to hold the objective is far more grevious than the loss of a few more men.

The round was a tie.

__________________
E-Male

fuzzhead

I think part of the problem from a mission POV about this arguement about whether it was a tie or a clear victory is that this old version of the mission does not have the latest updates in it. In updated version there is a hard limit of reinforcements that each team has, and once that limit is reached the mission ends, citing "your forces have been routed" because of massive casualties. I think the BLUFOR attackers were probably close or over that limit (50 deaths)... well hopefully beta gets the missions updated and then the admins can upload new version so the mission has a more smoother ending. I dont think the mission was too large for the player count though, there was plenty of action I thought, and because of the size of the mission area it meant you had alot of room to manuever, also I think because of the mission area size it has alot more replayability because you can approach the scenario in very different ways on both teams, which is good and ensures it wont get repetitive.

bobik

Edit: Nevermind.

__________________

Dslyecxi

If it makes you feel better to stick to that, by all means, feel free. I disagree, as have many others in this thread. I think I'll leave it at that now. You've said your bit, I've said mine, and I don't think we will reconcile on this.

It would be interesting to see blufor attempt something similar in an updated version of the mission. I don't think that Hamburger Hill 101 would be a viable strategy when death limits are suddenly a factor.

__________________

Airdrop420

why do ppl care who won?

E-Male

Keep in mind, I do not care who won. We play on both sides, winners and losers, We play today beside those who bested us yesterday. We are comrades (or at least many of us are) in victory and defeat.

Mine is a curiousity with meanings, how people intrepret situations within a postmodern condition wherein something may be the case without necessarily being true (to pharaphrase Frederic Jameson). My none-truth and others!

I fully expect to be bested by many of you (and most certainly by Dsylexci!) -- this does not concern me in the least. I hold no ill will towards any how see differently than I, and look forward with much anticipation towards the next time I am playing in the same team with Dsylexci and other ShackTac members -- they have much to teach me about the art of war.

__________________
E-Male

Burncycle

I see what your stance is: In the end, BLUFOR had an objective and OPFOR had an objective and that's all that matters, it's a tie. We respectfully disagree with the assessment because that ignores everything else that happened in the previous hour and a half.

The spirit of the objectives is for BLUFOR to capture and hold two points on the map, and for OPFOR to defend the objectives. Apparently in the new version, casualties also matter, but as a condition of the stated objectives that was irrelevant in this particular instance. So, OPFOR defense strategy worked for 89 minutes (and incidentally, had the game lasted longer than 90 minutes every indication is that it would have continued to work) and although grabbing the objective at the last second was a commendable feat of coordination, the BLUFOR strategy was wholely dependant on the round ending in order to achieve any semblance of success with that strategy. As such, it could be considered a bit gamey because BLUFOR was unable to otherwise accomplish their mission in the time alloted and had to wait for an external influence (the 90 minute time limit) to pull it off.

While it is indeed conjecture to assume that OPFOR would have been able to take it back in minutes, the previous hour and a half of gameplay can be used as a rough indicator when viewed as a whole as described by Dsl in his numbered list above. In that particular instance, it seems quite likely. BLUFOR was unable to adapt to OPFOR's defensive strategy and that's why they were unable to grab and hold the objective at any time earlier than the last 30 seconds.

We are not using kills over objectives as a primary indicator of success or failure, nor did we imply that the objectives somehow shift once time is about to run out, these are misinterpretations of our argument.

I see where you're coming from, and you may technically have a point if you look only at who was actually IN what objective at the end. We're talking semantics anyway WRT who "won" so we'll have to agree to disagree, but when looked at as a whole it's pretty clear that OPFOR was dominating BLUFOR the entire round, and by all indications they would have continued to do so even if the round lasted longer.

Despite the issues that were faced (long mission, few players and large map) it was still pretty fun though.