A Personal Observation

**viper1986** · 04-23-2012, 04:38 PM

So, I would just like to post an observation that honestly has taken the wind out of my sails since getting back to playing ArmA and that there seems to be a real lack of Mechanized missions.

I don't know if its just a boycott that I missed or if mission makers are not sure how to balance a mission so that friendly armor isn't over powering but it's defiantly made me just rage quit more missions that I'd really like.

I'm not putting down any of the work that mission makers have done and the time they put into missions but could someone provide some insight as to why armor is lacking in many missions?

Here are my observations so please do not take them as an attack.

1. Many times all that is given is a humvee/jeep that may have a mounted M2 but they are never really utilized. Most times they are just used for transportation and never used as an assaulting force. Is this because we are trying to adhere to a diehard infantry mentality or do mission commanders not know how to utilize such assets? If not sure how to utilize these assets then perhaps we need to have training sessions for this.

2. At the very least if you are creating an assault mission and your placing technicals and possibly a light tracked vehicle, atleast throw in a friendly Stryker or Bradley. I know your thinking "but they are too powerful"... They can as easily be destroyed as a whole squad can be wiped out by a techincal (i.e. last night that made me rage quit). Not saying add a whole platoon but atleast add one to create some color to the missions.

Remember, this is not an attack but more of an observation.

I know your thinking well then just don't play if you don't like it...

**Shoomfie** · 04-23-2012, 04:54 PM

Those missions are out there. I played a game just the other day that was successfully balanced with two Strykers and a Longbow on Fallujah (I forget the name, but I believe it had the word "dawn" in it). But I hear what you're saying. It seems like the first thing we tend to do is dismount the 50cal., MK19's, 30mm, etc. and leave valuable assets behind. Although I thoroughly enjoy infantry missions. I also would like to concur with your thoughts, and say that there doesn't seem to be enough utilization of big guns.

**woof** · 04-23-2012, 04:56 PM

I would also like to see better coordination between tracked/wheeled vehicles and their infantry dismounts. It is a vital skill set to learn, since many of the recent events have featured motorized/mechanized infantry operations.

We have an excellent resource in the form of TGU. I would suggest getting a few knowledgeable heads together and put a proposed course curriculum to the folks at TGU, and get a Mechanized Infantry Operations course rolling as a way to get people up to speed on how to work with armored vehicles and dismount infantry.

An alternative or complimentary idea is to talk to some of the mission makers for Bravo about making some missions featuring mounted infantry operations.

I've grimaced more than a few times when I see people flying less than 2km from the base at Rasman to a mission area while running the mission "Patrol Ops". It really makes no sense from a realism or practical standpoint when there is a motor pool available. A HMMV or Stryker would provide the bonus of direct fire support, in addition to being a capable transport and CASEVAC vehicle.

**ChiefBoatsRet** · 04-23-2012, 06:18 PM

I agree with the above posts about not utilizing the vehicles more in attack and defence instead of just transport. I know Woof and a few others use armor when the AO is closer to our base and its a lot of fun to mount up with some armor and dismounts to go kick some butt.

**Dimitrius** · 04-23-2012, 06:21 PM

I enjoy utilizing the strikers in SML on Fallujah. When manned by an aware crew the strikers can provide excellent support for the platoon. We usually use them as security for command in the beginning and then on call for either of the two squad leads for fire assistance or intervention.

**Unkl** · 04-23-2012, 09:59 PM

I agree with all the above. The use of these assets I think has been curbed by how many times we've seen new players grab the closest armor and one-man it to immediate death. Knowing how to crew such a vehicle is not as easy as jump in & go. Knowing how to coordinate with your infantry is even harder. When it's done wrong it ruins the game for each. But, there is a learning curve & a fun factor to figuring it out the hard way or the TGU way. The race is on.

**Athanasa** · 04-23-2012, 10:04 PM

As a newbie mission maker, it's sometimes very hard to balance out vehicles and infantry. You want a vehicle that's not so 'strong' it can practically steamroll a mission on it's own. Equally, you want something tough enough that it won't be taken out by the first thing that hits it, and at least provides decent protection for it's crew (not gun Humvees). Then there's the issue of terrain - in areas like Takistan, any vehicle with powerful optics can pretty much snipe anything form a mile off (unless you severely limit viewdistance, and even then it has an advantage).

A lot of the issues are with terrain, actually. I personally dislike Fallujah, due to the lack of enterable buildings - both for players and enemy. Ideally, I'd like to be able to stick enemies with RPGs on rooftops so they can fire down on the vehicles. However, if half those rooftops are inaccessible, that's hardly fair. Again, calling for Emita City for Bravo.

I'd really like to see (despite it being unrealistic) a tank and infantry thing going, possibly rolling a tank through Fallujah or (please?) Emita City. On the ACE mod, you then need to make sure the infantry can support the tank's blind spots (RPG ahoy!), but also don't stand so close to it that they get whacked by the overpressure from it's main gun. The tank can also act rather well (with heavy front armour, anyway) to clear routes that would otherwise be unavailable by knocking down walls.

Actually, on that thought... a mission combining CQB room-clearing and tight alleyways for infantry, along with firing down large open streets / parks with a tank. Om nom nom.

Edit: Admins, give us Emita City for Bravo! It's perfect for Mech + Air + Inf! Tight streets mean the air can't see everything (UAV support, nom nom?), funnels Mech, the amount of enterable buildings makes air insertions to the top of buildings viable, and... and... I'll bake you a cake if you do it.

Edit2: I'd totally try to make an event mission to celebrate it, too!

**Unkl** · 04-23-2012, 10:09 PM

Emita City is for Alpha and more specifically Password days on Alpha. It is the cake you can eat there.

**zebra.actual** · 04-24-2012, 12:34 AM

Why is Emita City going to remain a Alpha only map?

**ChiefBoatsRet** · 04-24-2012, 02:18 AM

Like Ace & ACRE are for Bravo, Alpha gets it's little extra thing.

**Athanasa** · 04-24-2012, 04:15 AM

Issue with Fallujah for tanks etc is there's very few places the infantry can go that a tank can't go. Sure, there are a few 'enterable' buildings, but they aren't big enough or tall enough to hide anything that can threaten a tank.

...

I need to learn to make maps now.

**AdeptAbyss** · 04-24-2012, 09:18 AM

Originally Posted by Unk

Emita City is for Alpha and more specifically Password days on Alpha. It is the cake you can eat there.

May we know why? I see no reason for it not to be on bravo and alpha.

and I think we could use a new map or two, to mix it up some more

**Athanasa** · 04-24-2012, 09:19 AM

To keep Alpha happy with having custom content, suggest bringing something new to Alpha and shuffling Emita along to Bravo.

**Dimitrius** · 04-24-2012, 10:46 AM

Admins discretion aside, I agree with Adept, is there any kind of threat being produced by allowing an additional map on Bravo? It may even be a bit of an incentive to encourage any hesitant players to give Bravo a try.

"You're already familiar with Emita city, would you like to give it a try with Bravo mods to see if it is something you may be interested in?

If we break this down into simple math, then one of the many constants in Arma is it's maps. The independent variables include the mods, people, tactics, and attitudes. I understand why we need to pay good attention to mods and make sure that they're not only safe for us to use, but also adding to the immersion we expect on Bravo, but maps do not change the experience in a game the way that third-party augmentation does.

If we were to wipe the slate clean of mods and players, there would only be the maps and two servers, named Alpha and Bravo. If we add people and mods, then we see the difference. One could argue that the map is a domain and the range of complexity involves mods, people, and attitude.

However, that does nothing to stand in the way of the admins discreation, which would be "yeah, but we're doing it this way." =)

Just my two cents. I love Emita City! I'd love to see it on Bravo!

**WarFairy** · 04-24-2012, 11:01 AM

Bravo has a lot of nice toys. It recently got a few new ones as well.

I think Alpha can have one shiny toy that can only be found there. You can all visit Alpha and play, we do not bite over there. I promise you will have as a good time as you have on Bravo.