beita

Wow. Hot topic it seems.


Words of the mission creator here ...

OBJECTIVES
------------
BLUFOR - Hold both Eastern and Western HQ within 90 minutes
REDFOR - Hold either Eastern and Western HQ for 90 minutes


There is no partial victories coded for my missions, seems unnecessary as they are simplistic scenarios.

BLUFOR didn't accomplish their objectives, REDFOR did.



Either way, yes, the next version is going to be much different. The ticket system will have lead to a shorter game.

However, from my POV, I am not entirely sure REDFOR would have won.

Each engagement near Hill 101 I was part of left a lot of BLUFOR dead, but ALL the REDFOR dead. We were standing on the REDFOR corpses, in the new system, we had "won".

If you can remove an enemy body, you remove the ability for them to get another "free life".

REDFOR did an excellent job of harassing the BLUFOR and defeated all but one of the pushes into the town before it got to the outskirts.

Well played I must say.


Looking forward to playing again, with the newest rule set.



Also, I noticed a few people considered the round to be too long. What would you consider a more reasonable time limit?

I chose 90 minutes because of previous experience. 45 minutes was too short, if the first attack failed, the attackers were doomed. 60 minutes forced the attackers to rush, similar to 45 minutes. 120 minutes was too long and drawn out.

Suggestions?

bobik

Just pointing this out, Blufor had 70+ casulties and Redfor had 30-40.

90 minutes seemed okay to me. As long as both side has good leadership and keeps up the battle, it stays fun.

__________________

E-Male

90 minutes seemed fine -- less would not allow for adaptive changes in tactics. We all sit through a movie for 90 minutes, and a good game is far more interesting than most movies.

BTW, thank you for the work on creating such a great map, Beita.

As to the interesting and enlightening exchanges within this thread, perhaps in future it would be best to refrain from diminutive comments about the other team's performance when such comments imply less than honourable intentions.

__________________
E-Male

Sam Hoy

90 minutes is not a bad amount of time, I think 60 minutes could work out well too though. But perhaps to alleviate any gaming or the illusion of gaming towards the last few minutes maybe the number were somewhat random. Between a range perhaps. So maybe the round could last at maximum 90minutes but at minimum 70minutes or some other combination of time.

viper1986

i gotta say something here. i for one don't care how many times you point out the casualtie's on either side. you can brag about your kill ration to ours and say you had better leadership. SO WHAT! my man grambo did a awesome job his first time leading, my hat is off to him. also, you are bragging that you had us stopped then entire game and your defense was top notch and you could have taken back the western hq if more time was allowed. now, if you had used this superior defense the hq at the end would not have been taken. who cares if the hq was taken at the very end of the match, victories aren't always gained at the beginning of the fight. BLUFOR may not have taken both but they still managed to keep pushing till the very end.

another point towards who had more kills, if you are into that i believe the guys in BF2 would love to hear your story. otherwise keep that stuff out of this because it did not determine who won or lost.

now i am going to have a nice cold drink. anyone want one?

__________________
|TG-1st| Viper - Commanding Officer

The Vanguard

Contact an Admin

Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine as children do. It's not just in some of us; it is in everyone. And as we let our own lights shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others

Sam Hoy

Its absolutely no surprise that Opfor had less causalities than Blufor. Blufor was attacking a force of a equal numerical strength in fortified positions.
The point I think is there is no point in using fatality quantity as a measurement of victory because victory in a categorical sense is entirely irrelevant. What is relevant is the tactical lessons gained from this event and what leaders and players alike can gain from it. Deciding who won, who lost and who tied is just needless bickering in my opinion.

fuzzhead

agreed. I hope that this thread doesnt have to be locked, I think E-male, dyslecxi and the others have agreed to disagree and no further discussion about the "Tie" or whatever needs to happen.

Maybe next time should name the thread a bit more generically so as not to stir up controversy and instead stick with what an AAR should be about, what went right, what went wrong, and what can be improved.

E-Male

I hope I have not been bickering, and I certainly do not take the opposing comments as bickering. Many valid points have been raised by both sides.

A bit of controversy is good for the soul, and good for the health of the community -- keeps us sharp, helps us improve. The important thing is to continue to treat opposing opinions and individuals with the respect that they deserve.

__________________
E-Male

Sam Hoy

Certainly 'bickering' is a crass but perhaps not entirely inaccurate term to use. I have read multiple accounts of various albeit conflicting criterion used to classify victory or defeat. This discussion of such success requirements has dominated the forum and seems to have transposed itself over the typical, thorough and quite enjoyable detailed after action reports which community members have historically complied after a particularly vigorous bout of Armed Assault. This discourse has been quite a departure from what I'd expect from the community and I truly hope that the introduction of increased adversarial play will not infuse additional exchanges comparable to this one where victory supersedes tactical lessons. For instance, it has been stated on numerous occasions that BLUFOR's tanks were quickly destroyed (within 10 minutes of the commencing of the round). This is obviously an empirical fact and cannot be disputed. However, some individuals seem to flaunt this data as evidence of their commanding triumph. And of course it certainly is important in the general trend of the battle, but overall extremely unimportant in improving the community as a whole. What would be more educational would be for OPFOR to detail the personnel, equipment and tactics used to disable the BLUFOR tanks and offer strategic advice to community members to avoid suffering a similar fate. For instance, someone suggested deploying the tank to a hill north of the town. Would this have devoided OPFOR's anti-tank defenses, how could they have adapted. Conversely, it has been well established that BLUFOR succeeded in flanking their adversaries and controlling at least one control point. But, we don't know which direction they moved in from and how they prepared themselves for the inevitable counterattack. I hope that the high intensity variability of adversarial game play will lead to the development and teaching of more advanced tactics and not lead to significant emotional attachments to individual and informal rounds which in my opinion are excellent opportunities to teach and learn about military tactics not determine a definitive winner or loser. Because, when as a community we improve our leadership and tactical awareness we are all winners.

E-Male

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam Hoy I have read multiple accounts of various albeit conflicting criterion used to classify victory or defeat.

All good points Sam, and perhaps it its time to return to the original issue that generated this thread:

"I was quite disappointed (but not heart broken) when someone accused us of 'gaming' the game (perhaps he was just speaking in good humor). I am sure that this 'gaming' is done on occassion, but I do not see how that would apply to a strategic flanking maneuver that took into account enemy patterns of activity, anticipated their response, and achieved a key objective.

Many victories, or simple ties, are achieved in the last moments of a contest. Why diminish our accomplishment?

It seems to me the defending forces foolishly left their rear completely unguarded. They left their net open, they pulled their goalie.

And we scored a tie goal.

Gaming or effective strategy?

This is not an issue of victory or defeat, but of an accusation of 'gaming'. The accusation, I mantain, was an unjust interpretation of my intentions.

The game designer has delivered the final word on the tie issue -- there can be no tie. With this judgement I have no argument.

I do take exception to in-game comments that diminish the fair and successful actions of men under my command.

The incident is itself very minor, even though it was hurtful. It does have relevance to our mutual goal of improving the community as a whole, as one must be ready to win with grace and accept defeat with grace. Such accusations, warranted or otherwise, move us from the realm of grace to dishonour.

__________________
E-Male

Dslyecxi

This has been absolutely beaten to death already in the thread. Everything that needs to be said has been said already. I suppose I can sum it up again, though, since you've likewise chosen to sum up something you already stated multiple times previously in the thread.

1. The timing was extremely suspicious. This is said to be coincidental. If so, that's fine, but it doesn't change the next point.
2. The result was gamey, whether intended or not. The "gamey" call is justified.
3. The decision to call that a "tie" seemed unfounded and was not backed up by the opinion of the mission designer himself, or the dynamics of the mission. As beta said, there was no "tie" victory condition.

Calling a gamey situation gamey isn't a personal insult directed at every member of the opposing team. You obviously have taken an extreme amount of pride in your flanking maneuver and are reacting at least in part because of the fact that you feel personally singled out by the post-game remarks. If you feel that pride is justified, by all means, feel good about it. However, don't expect everyone to agree with you. What I saw at the conclusion of the round was gamey. You saw it differently. Fine. I don't expect to see eye to eye with you or anyone else on every single topic, and I think the same is reasonable to expect in return. In all seriousness, at what point do you agree to disagree and let it go? This dead-horse-beating doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

__________________

Blackdog1

ENOUGH....TO ALL CONCERNED.....

mooooooooove on to the next game!



Points all made, fun was had, if Opfor had taken into account the game clock as well, you might have chosen to fully defend both bases with every man available in the last few minutes thus rendering the last minute attack and this whole discussion moot!

So...no more needs to be said...when we playing this again!



BD1