Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Use of Air assets

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Use of Air assets

    I know that some people may say that the following idea regarding air assests might be biase because some people say that I only say this because I like to fly them, but the logic within the following post will show a valid point of to some people and that can be applied to any assest on the game this being ground and air.


    1.- Air assets are toys
    Wron air assests can be a toy as much as the commander wants them to be, we have seen on various event missions that these assests have never been used as toys and instead have been a force multiplier, this depends on command and the person that use this assests.

    2.- Why use air assests if we have ground assests that are better

    This again fails in the same ideology as the first one air assests can be as efficient or even more than ground assests as commander wants them to be if commanders dont place restrains on the pilots in the briefing and during the course of the mission, of course that they are not gonna be that efficient. The main problem is that there are a few commanders that really know how to use air assests as effective as ground, this is caused because commanders want to juggle with ground assests and air assets, not saying that its impossible but the problem is that efficiency is reduced on the response time. To solve this problem there has to be a 2IC,FAC,Pathfinder,JTAC on control of air assests, as we have convoy commander on the ground.


    3.- Ahh if we use air assests you get all the kills / the mission will be fast

    This is the point that really bugs me a lot, Why you ask simple

    Simple air assests is as any asset lets take for example:
    Ground: The best example of this is infantry, this assest has rules of engagement, if a commander says condition yellow all the infantry follow this restriction and only open fire when fired upon. Another example is armored assests the also have restrictions and follow them as they are ordered

    Air assests can have the same restrictions which are the following:
    Only open fire on armored target
    Only open fire on lased target
    Only open fire on types of 9 line 1,2,3
    Only open fire on AA if fired upon


    I havent been playing much here on comparison with other people that usually serve as commander but I have been seen this comments among the community.


    The final thought that I would like to say to commanders is the following:

    Air assests can be as efficient or inefficient as the commander wants

    Air assets can have no ROE or can have as much as a commander likes

  • #2
    Re: Use of Air assets

    If used correctly, air assets are indeed a force multiplier.

    Current ARMA Development Project: No Current Project

    "An infantryman needs a leader to be the standard against which he can judge all soldiers."

    Friend of |TG| Chief

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Use of Air assets

      All 3 points point to the same thing...

      Command allocation of assets.

      I am not sure what your aiming at with the post m8 ?
      The path of my life is strewn with cowpats from the devil's own satanic herd.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Use of Air assets

        that point commanders allocation

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Use of Air assets

          Missions with vehicles come up so rarely, commanders ought to be discouraged from making calls which are prejudicial towards the gameplay style/preference of others or which disregard advice given in the notes: ex. "Use of all assets strongly recommended" or "Pilot required."

          I think the real reason for making a call not to use vehicles is rooted in 1) a desire to control players who the commander regards as potentially immature (see: pilot prejudice) by forcing them to march in lines in an infantry-only team. 2) a view that assets will make radio comms or tactical calls too complicated, particularly when a less-organized commander has to give things like 9-line support requests to pilots.

          Commanders allocation isn't the divine gospel nor should it be. It allows any single person with a potentially destructive attitude and approach to gameplay to dictate to everybody on the server just because they clicked into a slot labeled Platoon Command. At TG since we're all for the most part mature, skilled players we ought to treat each other as such. That means not making autocratic calls or using buzz words like 'playing with toys' to discourage people from asking for special roles or privileges.

          Player numbers making asset use unfeasible is one thing, but deliberately forcing players to drop NVGs, throw away GPS's or ignore any and all vehicles heavier than an M2 HMMWV even when clearly provided is just punishing. If the mission maker has provided it, it should be used. Commander's intent can't overstep accomplishing the mission. That is the role of the commmander. In actuality an infantry platoon commander would be TOLD he had air-support on standby and would have no authority to tell the pilots to take a day off. Believe it or not, some of us play this game not just for the MARPATS.

          Believe me, nothing is more frustrating than watching assets get all the kills. Having said that, something needs to be done to ramp up the speed at which missions are played. That means more in-game briefings from commanders (So people can have quiet conversations on local with their friends while the commander marks the map) that also means better use of dedicated force-multipliers to overcome otherwise punishing odds. Several times in the past week I have seen commanders ignore assets/advice to pursue a 'ROLEPLAY' environment. This usually leads to the complete breakdown of the mission on first contact with 20+ people who waited over an hour dying in a spectacular hail of gunfire because the right supports were not provided.

          Above all the commander has a responsibility to make sure that 1) The mission (as designed by creator) is successful. 2) The mission (as designed by creator) is fun.

          I like playing games on punishingly high difficulties as well, but sometimes it's good for morale to actually win.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Use of Air assets

            Intrepid, take command next time it is offered, and show us how you would do it.

            That is not a challenge, it is an encouragement.

            Current ARMA Development Project: No Current Project

            "An infantryman needs a leader to be the standard against which he can judge all soldiers."

            Friend of |TG| Chief

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Use of Air assets

              Originally posted by 1n7r3p1d View Post
              Commanders allocation isn't the divine gospel nor should it be. It allows any single person with a potentially destructive attitude and approach to gameplay to dictate to everybody on the server just because they clicked into a slot labeled Platoon Command. At TG since we're all for the most part mature, skilled players we ought to treat each other as such. ...

              Player numbers making asset use unfeasible is one thing, but deliberately forcing players to drop NVGs, throw away GPS's or ignore any and all vehicles heavier than an M2 HMMWV even when clearly provided is just punishing. If the mission maker has provided it, it should be used. Commander's intent can't overstep accomplishing the mission. That is the role of the commmander. In actuality an infantry platoon commander would be TOLD he had air-support on standby and would have no authority to tell the pilots to take a day off. Believe it or not, some of us play this game not just for the MARPATS.

              Believe me, nothing is more frustrating than watching assets get all the kills. Having said that, something needs to be done to ramp up the speed at which missions are played. That means more in-game briefings from commanders (So people can have quiet conversations on local with their friends while the commander marks the map) that also means better use of dedicated force-multipliers to overcome otherwise punishing odds. Several times in the past week I have seen commanders ignore assets/advice to pursue a 'ROLEPLAY' environment. This usually leads to the complete breakdown of the mission on first contact with 20+ people who waited over an hour dying in a spectacular hail of gunfire because the right supports were not provided.

              Above all the commander has a responsibility to make sure that 1) The mission (as designed by creator) is successful. 2) The mission (as designed by creator) is fun.

              I like playing games on punishingly high difficulties as well, but sometimes it's good for morale to actually win.
              Guess I disagree here. The Commanders allocation of assets (as long as not being disruptive or against Primer) are your orders. We follow the chain of command, no ifs ands or buts. It's ok to provide some feedback or suggestions if you are in the position to do so (SL, XO) but you play the mission per the commander's intent.*

              IMO, the roll of the commander is two fold: Set a plan to achieving the mission objective, then secondarily; Do it in a way that maximizes player engagement when possible. Maybe everyone doesn't need a GPS, let the SL lead the rifles, let the rifles focus on covering their sectors. Maybe all thats needed to accomplish the CO's plan is transport via some M2's, bringing Armor just doesn't fit. Maybe you've played that mission 12 times the past week and this is a way of spicing it up? Let the CO accomplish the mission as he sees fit. You can do it your way the next time you CO.
              Last edited by ThirdSin; 11-02-2012, 06:08 PM.
              Q: How many members of Congress does it take to change a light bulb?
              A: None. There is nothing wrong with the light bulb; its conditions are improving every day. Any reports of its lack of incandescence are delusional spin from the liberal media. That light bulb has served honorably, and anything you say undermines the lighting effort. Why do you hate freedom?!?

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Use of Air assets

                Not sure what all the hubbub is about but the commander has always had the ability to lead the mission as he or she sees fit. The best way to play the mission the way you would like it played is to volunteer to be the commander as Dimitrius has pointed out.

                As far as the use of assets I do agree that if the mission notes say required than an asset or unit should be played otherwise you are breaking the spirit of the mission. If something is suggested then it falls under the commander's discretion and everything else unspecified is up for grab's.

                If a commander said Makarovs only, I would say "How many mags, sir?". :row__587:
                sigpic

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Use of Air assets

                  I will remember that def about the makarovs lol

                  I think assets in missions are used in the right way. If your taking a lot fire and have men down its a great feeling to have an asset come rolling up or flying in and taking out a few targets so we can deal with the men who are down.

                  Some missions never go the way you would like them to go but its still a lot of fun trying the same missions different ways to see how they will turn out. win or lose we live to fight another day.
                  sigpic

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Use of Air assets

                    All that I can say its up to the commander how assets are used, if people say that the problem are the pilots thats the wrong way to see it, commander is in charge in the air and ground, and if they dont follow orders they should not be allowed to use the assests that have so much weight

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Use of Air assets

                      From my past experience it's all a constantly dynamic balance. With such a community as we have at TG there are alot of things that change for every mission. It all depends on who is on the server, we are fortunate to have a growing population of regular plauers but "Never" have the same people playing and as such alot of plans have to be created on the fly and we can not make one blueprint for every mission.

                      I am pleased with the way the regular commanders run the missions. Since me coming back to TG I have seen things improve, the missions got a faster start, more strict comms, intense fights and all added up to a better Arma experience for me.

                      It also depends on the player numbers and their skill. I have seen comanders use assets air and ground many times without hesitation, when there was a confident operator. We have good strategic leaders that can lead the mission and execute plans.

                      But we also have "Exceptional" leaders for the community who not only execute a plan but as a commander lead in a way that depending on who is on the server, do their best to make sure everyone is involved and has a good experience.

                      In my opinion things are going well, thats why we have discussions and AARs. Keep communicating, I don't believe there is a personal grudge against force multipliers it's just that there has to be a criteria meet to use extra assets like (skill/restraint and if it's practical) and I already see that with that criteria meet those assets are being used.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Use of Air assets

                        The more variables in a given equation, the more complex the output is going to be. Last night when we used the Apache on "Lazy Sunday" there were several tactical situations related to downed pilots and repair, which complicated the gameplay substantially. Shilkas wound up wrecking the Apache not once but twice, but both times medical assistance was on-site within minutes. I think we've proven we're mature enough to handle the big toys (even if we're overall not quite skilled enough to keep them alive for the whole mission).

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Use of Air assets

                          Well next time I would like you to explain to a memeber how to operate as gunner effectivly while doing the work of scanning the whole map, yesterday was an excpetion done by myself, wont happen we have used air assests in various missions and yes sometimes it guess complicated, but that is just another face of using air assests.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Use of Air assets

                            Originally posted by 1n7r3p1d View Post
                            The more variables in a given equation, the more complex the output is going to be. Last night when we used the Apache on "Lazy Sunday" there were several tactical situations related to downed pilots and repair, which complicated the gameplay substantially. Shilkas wound up wrecking the Apache not once but twice, but both times medical assistance was on-site within minutes. I think we've proven we're mature enough to handle the big toys (even if we're overall not quite skilled enough to keep them alive for the whole mission).
                            One of the problems is a lot of our combat pilots never really get a chance to fly in combat scenarios in-game, so we don't really have time to practice. Yeah you can try to practice in the Editor or on a Client server, but a lot of the unforgiving-ness and challenge is lost doing it like that. While in a mission everything changes and pilots really have to think a lot harder. What it will take is that we just get the chance to work with combat aircraft more and allow our pilots to become more experienced.

                            I personally love using aircraft because it adds another level of complexity and cooperation into the mission. Yeah it can slow things down sometimes, and yeah you as an infantryman may not get to shoot as many bots, and yeah things can go HORRIBLY wrong; however,some of the best missions I've had were when things had gone horribly wrong! It always great to see leaders running into a great obstacle and causes the plan to go awry and leaders are forced to make lightning fast decisions and end up getting the mission complete. Nothing is better as a leader (to me) than having something go wrong and be able to still complete the mission despite the high level of stress. There just that feeling of "Holy crap, we did it."
                            Blackpython / ZephyrDark
                            Former 31st RECCE Member

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Use of Air assets

                              Originally posted by ZephyrDark View Post
                              One of the problems is a lot of our combat pilots never really get a chance to fly in combat scenarios in-game, so we don't really have time to practice. Yeah you can try to practice in the Editor or on a Client server, but a lot of the unforgiving-ness and challenge is lost doing it like that. While in a mission everything changes and pilots really have to think a lot harder. What it will take is that we just get the chance to work with combat aircraft more and allow our pilots to become more experienced.
                              Sounds like a challenge. It might be fun to do a mission where a commander is forced into a broken arrow situation.

                              We Were Soldiers Clip
                              sigpic

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X