Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mod Untern Lehrgangen v1.04b

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

  • Mod Untern Lehrgangen v1.04b

    Thanks all for playing this Unofficial Event and keeping it full the entire time.

    As a CO, I can say it is the most challenging piece of mission making I've ever attempted to lead, and my modifications to the original mission made it downright brutal. If you actually stuck with the mission for an entire 2 hours, each of you probably engaged a half-dozen vehicles or more, protected your vehicles from 20+ RPG soldiers, and killed an ungodly number of enemy infantry.

    This is a good one to unPBO and look at the huge amount of scripting work done by KidDynamite, Xeno, and Norrin (among others). I've never met these guys, but they make really interesting patrol spawns that keep the action INTENSE. I only added a couple of spawn zones to the original mission and corrected a few script and equipment issues, which was a good learning experience for me considering the complexity of this behemoth. You will notice there are almost no "placed" enemy units on the map... meaning almost all units are spawned dynamically and placed randomly in very large areas. This means that it a) never repeats the same engagements, b) is full of useful triggers (mission editors will love it) and c) is freaking impossible to "plan" in any traditional sense.

    Because of "C" I didn't bother making a single mark on the map at start, because I knew the plan would inevitably change, which leads to an almost-out-of-control dynamic style that is forced upon the entire group. CO can't give orders without asking for more information, and even then it is best to give specific decisions to the team leaders.

    The team leaders were extremely good, with clear comms and proactive decisions. 1-1-B started with ratlover, but thanks to Grunt for taking over (and to be honest, I'm surprised that risky heli insertion didn't draw every tank in Grish on you). 1-1-C was HReardon, keeping Cookie Monster in a cookie frenzy (it's an Mk19 thing). 1-1-D Scope and engineers, you guys had the hardest job and kept the vehicles from lying around and being ad hoc campfires. 1-1-E Skin... man, you were just ridiculous. I don't know how you managed to bring your sniper team (with a TOW hummer, a necessity around that much armor) so far south and across the minefield. You were tip-of-the-spear all the way, easily 1km ahead of the lines (and as snipers, right where we needed you). Krause, sorry Belly Dancer wasn't an easy ride, but after I forced you to handle it solo you kept the armor disabled. Hotmachina and Osprey and h3killa kept the dangerous flying runs going. Hot, your recon runs were life saving.

    I don't want to just note the team leaders, but they were the ones I was talking to the most. Hopefully the team leaders can point out specific players, because there was some valant s*** going on out there.

    And for the record, I've never seen the AI attack the base so aggressively with ground assets at the start. We never made it off the front porch before we were receiving recon reports from the MH-60S from really more armor contacts than I could count. By the time I finished saying the convoy order and heard the first recon reports, it was clear that we were in for a ride.

    So thanks for the ride TGers!

  • #2
    Re: Mod Untern Lehrgangen v1.04b

    I am really curious about this mission because by the sounds of it, the entire enemy ai was dynamic. it sounded like none of them were live from the very beginnng and it really depended on what you wanted to do with your units and that dictated the ai triggers.

    aside from the mission play, was the server performance better with this dynamic ai system? with the success of this mission would this new system be something that should become more commonly used and is it possible to create a streamlined script for the community? by this I mean could a generic script be built but offer the ability to adjust key items?

    I am really pumped by this longtime. awesome write up.
    FORMER 22ND RRR/FORMER 1ST JTOC/ ALWAYS A TACTICALGAMER


    Spartan 4

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Mod Untern Lehrgangen v1.04b

      Very disappointed that connection issues kept me out of the last 45 minutes of the mission, but I had a blast. Untern Lehgangen is perhaps my favorite mission because of the dynamic feel I get from it -- as an engineer, we were constantly going "into the ****" to rescue downed birds, repair broken Strykers and re-arm empty Mk19s.

      I had an absolute blast, and I'd love to see that level of dynamic gameplay in new missions! Being a logistics unit in Untern is unlike any other experience in ArmA -- and I think it's my favorite way to play.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Mod Untern Lehrgangen v1.04b

        My thoughts:

        1. I thought the scenario was pretty unrealistic, a greatly reduced stryker company (3 sections infantry, 1 section MGS, 1 section recon + support elements) would never attack a modern russian armored battalion. Its one thing to defend against such a force, its another thing to attack it, especially in that terrain which is hostile to armored warfare. At the very least I would have a platoon (3) rather than a section of MGS strykers, although if I had my way I would replace the strykers altogether and style blufor instead as a main effort combined arms attack task force - give em a platoon of abrams (4) and bradleys (4), a BFIST, plus support.

        My recommendations, conservative:

        Infantry Platoon:
        x3 M2 SLAT strykers
        x1 MK19 Slat stryker

        Anti-Armor Platoon:
        X3 MGS strykers or x3 TOW strykers

        Command:
        x1 m2 stryker (C2)
        x1 rv stryker (FO)

        Support:
        Whatever magic wand trucks you want to add.

        Preferred:

        Tank Platoon:
        x4 abrams

        Mechanized Infantry Platoon:
        x4 bradleys

        Command:
        x1 bfist (FO)
        x1 bradley (C2)

        If you think about.. we have a single offensive AT asset - the MGS, and a single vehicle at that. The MGS is not a MBT, its armor is rated against auto canons in the front only, and ATGMs and main guns from tanks will kill it with one shot... it can't duke it out with T-90s, especially at close range.

        I know you didnt' make this mission but if you are going to do further modifications, might as well make it believable. It reeks of domination right now.

        2. I think its a fallacy that its impossible to plan for missions such as that - basic things such as an order of march, directives, taskforce leaders, axis of approach etc can be effected. As far as I could tell there was no plan at all - I at least had no idea what our immediate goals were. The coms were also filled with chatter, making effective C2 impossible. The combination of no plan and no interoperability due to a lack of a framework for teamwork was the reason why things took so long. Dynamic environments are part of tactics.

        3. I think the enemy's air assets should be removed, I have yet to play a mission where having opfor air assets has enhanced enjoyment of whats going on. It's also unrealistic. Its difficult to model but in reality company or battalion headquarters would have anti-aircraft defense assets, including a radar. Helicopters and other aircraft would be detected and shot down. Did you know they even have a radar which tracks incoming shells and can tell you exactly where they are coming from? At the very least they would be detected, especially for a main effort simulation like this, where the main effort is given a large amount of support. This is to say nothing of the fact that any serious attack into a larger strategic area would be precluded with a destruction of enemy air assets on the ground.

        I can't say I had much fun playing this mission.. mainly due to the people who slotted as crewmen for 1-1-f. My driver would drive in random directions and it took me yelling "stop" 5 times before he would stop every time. My gunner kept jumping out of the vehicle when we stopped and wandering around. Both were disobeying orders, and the driver kept undermining me and trying to give orders to the gunner. Real fun.

        I think in the future, even if you dont make any of the changes I suggested here, that commanders treat the MGS element as the most important element on their team, ensuring that the SL and both crewmen are highly competent, much like how you would ensure pilots at TG are competent before slotting them. I spent at least 30 minutes trying to police my crew, which ultimately agitated me to such a degree that I didn't even want to play anymore.
        Last edited by tyrspawn; 01-16-2010, 03:47 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Mod Untern Lehrgangen v1.04b

          How about TOW ATGM Strykers for anti-armor?

          | |

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Mod Untern Lehrgangen v1.04b

            Just want to say I joined the back end of the mission and ended up as 1-1F Slats Gunner. I had problems getting in my assigned slot once I was on the ground as 1-1F seemed to have someone else hopping in and out of the gunner position. I can only imagine how frustrating this can be for a vehicle commander. We did get it sorted out in the end and managed to engage some infantry and a bmp without dying :) A small tip for the commander would be to call out bearing you want the turret point since its hard to find the targets by simply calling "enemy left or contact right..." appart from that it was all good fun.



            sigpic

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Mod Untern Lehrgangen v1.04b

              man i wish i couldve been there sounded like a blast. look forward to this mish popping up again so i can give it a whirl.

              sure...after having played the mission you can go "i wish i had this and i wish i had that". well i wish i had the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders living in my bedroom, but I dont. So i take what i got and make it happen. in a perfect world we would have 200 players online to fill the 19+ vehicles yuo want and make a company of infantry but you gotta make due with the engine/player base. While TG strives for realism the best we can....there is only so much we can do. so please in an aar, leave the christmas list out (you know who you are and what im referring to).
              "Lay down your soul to the gods rock and roll!" - Venom, 'Black Metal'



              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Mod Untern Lehrgangen v1.04b

                Originally posted by viper1986 View Post
                I am really curious about this mission because by the sounds of it, the entire enemy ai was dynamic. it sounded like none of them were live from the very beginnng and it really depended on what you wanted to do with your units and that dictated the ai triggers.

                aside from the mission play, was the server performance better with this dynamic ai system? with the success of this mission would this new system be something that should become more commonly used and is it possible to create a streamlined script for the community? by this I mean could a generic script be built but offer the ability to adjust key items?

                I am really pumped by this longtime. awesome write up.
                Thanks Viper, this stuff is really cool. I think these guys are wizards at scripting. The scripting isn't too heavy, actually... I'm not sure about what is in the FSM files though, I was scared to touch those... there could be some advanced garbage collecting in there. I didn't notice any significant lag and there wasn't any wide desync, despite 34 players (and 2 helis doing flyovers which my have triggered quite a bit of AI).

                I'll try to show some of this in the Mission Development forum soon. Briefly, the spawning stuff was pretty straightforward. A trigger with something like this on activation:

                Code:
                _handle = [position trig6, [300, 600, 45], 2,2,0,1,1,1,1,0,"EAST"] execVM "x_scripts\x_createpatrolgroups.sqf";
                ...and then look at a snippet of x_createpatrolgroups.sqf to see what those array values mean...

                Code:
                _startposi = _this select 0;
                _radius = _this select 1;
                _number_basic = _this select 2;
                _number_specops = _this select 3;
                _number_tank = _this select 4;
                _number_bmp = _this select 5;
                _number_brdm = _this select 6;
                _number_uaz_mg = _this select 7;
                _number_uaz_grenade = _this select 8;
                _number_shilka = _this select 9;
                _side = _this select 10;
                ...you will see those script values (2,2,0,1,1,1,1,0,"EAST") will unleash 2 basic troops, 2 specops, 0 tanks, 1 BMP, 1 BRDM... etc.

                Again, I think the really advanced stuff is in the FSMs or some garbage collection that I found but was afraid to touch.

                This stuff gives all kinds of evil ideas. I'm fairly certain that these principles are already being used in some other missions (Swagger). I'll take that to the Missions forum and find out.




                However, I want to address the realism and Blufor assets comment from tyrspawn/Krause. Some of it I agree with. Not to quote the entire list, but the random spawn triggers can be EXTREMELY overwhelming. I added an additional large trigger zone between the base and the first objective, and it became an epic adventure just to get out of the front door of the HQ.

                So it was unbalanced. Totally unfair. The unmodded version has plenty of fighting between the HQ and Objective 1, but nothing near what we encountered. My bad.

                I knew it would be hard, but I hoped a few air assets would soften the blow. Please remember this is my second attempt at modding these types of scripts, and they're fairly complex... a small "tweak" can make a big difference.

                HOWEVER, when we start talking about assets and realism, we start talking about opinions, and mine are completely different. I think realism has already left the building when burning Strykers can be repaired by MTVR trucks, so that helps to balance a bit. Also teleporting to MHQ, although not used much in this mission, makes a difference... almost makes 34 soldiers fight more like a company. But I like that format because it makes it FUN, but without completely tossing tactics. The enemy air attacks were already part of the mission... again, this is where I disagree with opinion, because I think they're pretty damn cool... and as for AA, we are given several Stingers to protect ourselves, so we're not totally defenseless.

                The biggest opinion disagreement that I have is the huge list of vehicles being suggested. The current mission is already bloated with vehicles. I worried that adding the helicopters would really mess up the balance, but decided that if the fight continues to Objective 2 and 3 the supply train can get excessively long, so I added them to give a transport option and a VERY LIMITED CAS option (nothing as advanced as an AH-1Z for example, way too overpowered).

                What I see suggested is 9 or 10 pure offensive vehicles, or almost double the current count. At some point, infantry become pointless and vehicles rule the battlefield. I think the Strykers... those fragile little things... are an EXCELLENT choice by the original mission makers because they require careful movement and coordination between the entire squad. Infantry are dismounted and screening at all times 30m in front of vehicles, because one nasty RPG will ruin everyone's day. It keeps the infantry engaged, when otherwise they may as well not even have infantry slots. Just crew. 30+ crew.

                Again, I understand my current mod of this mission may be considered way too much enemy contact, but I think the correct action is to allow me to reduce the enemy count, move some stuff around, and surprise you in a few months. I think that will be more fun than watching 4 Abrams mop the field. I think the list of assets you have given could destroy even the ridiculously overpower enemy I have set up now.

                But that's my longwinded opinion.

                I'll break this post as I'm about to shift into a completely different direction.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Mod Untern Lehrgangen v1.04b

                  Mission was great fun, even if the projected 2 hours time to completion seemed a bit off after we'd advanced 500m in 30 minutes. I was in Rearden's crew and we met the first heavy armor contact across a very thin strip of forest, then veered off into a wood where we took out a Vodnik. We came to a barn by a road at the foot of an open hillside by the airfield, where some infantry and another Vodnik were engaged. I asked if anyone needed a HuntIR and threw one up, the first I've ever seen used on TG - Hank requested that I deploy it to the east, and spotted an overwhelming enemy presence in the town behind us.

                  Afterwards we moved on and came to the guardpost, where the minefield was breached. Soon a Kamov was bearing down on our APC, and this is the only part where we had problems, as from my perspective it seemed the loss of our Stryker at that point could have been avoided by just backing up 10m on the road and using the green guardpost house as cover.

                  Either way, we then proceeded along a dirt road in staggered column formation on either side of the road, with the MGS at our backs. We walked straight into the middle of an enemy killzone and what I believe was a Vodnik killed me and IAJT out of nowhere. Unfortunately, I then took the opportunity to go AFK during the respawn countdown and then got sidetracked, so when I came back I assume the mission had been called and we were slotting for Ia Drang, which was also great fun and involved going through at least ten M60 belts.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Mod Untern Lehrgangen v1.04b

                    Originally posted by RagingHate View Post
                    man i wish i couldve been there sounded like a blast. look forward to this mish popping up again so i can give it a whirl.

                    sure...after having played the mission you can go "i wish i had this and i wish i had that". well i wish i had the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders living in my bedroom, but I dont. So i take what i got and make it happen. in a perfect world we would have 200 players online to fill the 19+ vehicles yuo want and make a company of infantry but you gotta make due with the engine/player base. While TG strives for realism the best we can....there is only so much we can do. so please in an aar, leave the christmas list out (you know who you are and what im referring to).
                    zzzz

                    No where do I request "19 vehicles" - I proposed two different sets of vehicles based upon the conservative suggestion and my personal preferred suggestion. If you do the math, it works out at around 50 players, the same as aircav or other large TG ops. That force level isn't unrealistic considering the massive enemy resistance. Part of an AAR is reviewing the mission, and that's part of an objective review.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Mod Untern Lehrgangen v1.04b

                      I didn't really enjoy the mission much, but I think it was just bad luck on our part.

                      We had a succession of command issue; our commander crashed, our new commander had to go AFK, etc. So, we were stuck in limbo waiting for orders while the rest of the platoon was seemingly getting killed.

                      A further edit to the mission I would suggest is this: ALWAYS, always, always put in vehicles crews for anything bigger than trucks\jeeps. Strykers in the infantry squad having to be manned by the infantry? Was a bad idea. It so happened that with all the command shuffle and people getting bored, we moved out to an objective on our own, towards an enemy guarded point (enemy was mechanized infantry - they had armour) without a single AT weapon. The best we had was an M240 and a GL. Our squad had 2 AT4 tubes, acceptable for 8 people. They were both the driver\gunner of the Stryker which was left behind ..

                      The mission was a pretty interesting concept though, the randomization of the enemy seemed to favour vehicles over infantry however, which made the infantry's job less exciting, mostly waiting for AT assets to come up. I also missed a sense of an organized enemy attacking us. It just seemed random that they would send out units piecemeal - 1 BMP here, a rifle squad there, some snipers over here. Though that is a mission design choice I guess.

                      Overall, I would try the mission again, but I think some tweaks could be made with respect to the vehicle crews and enemy composition.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Mod Untern Lehrgangen v1.04b

                        This deserves a separate post.

                        Originally posted by tyrspawn View Post
                        2. I think its a fallacy that its impossible to plan for missions such as that - basic things such as an order of march, directives, taskforce leaders, axis of approach etc can be effected. As far as I could tell there was no plan at all - I at least had no idea what our immediate goals were. The coms were also filled with chatter, making effective C2 impossible. The combination of no plan and no interoperability due to a lack of a framework for teamwork was the reason why things took so long. Dynamic environments are part of tactics.
                        You have alot to learn, both about leading and about writing a constructive AAR. So let me give you two pieces of advice.

                        First, the constructive AAR. Giving feedback in some sort of context is helpful. Giving feedback in a vacuum is not.

                        For instance, stating that "basic things such as an order of march can be effected" sounds like a good piece of advice, except it's completely sterilized from the context of last night's mission. By the time we were prepared to leave base, the convoy order was a moot point, which I immediately scratched, and if you think about it and were in my chair you would understand why. Before we even left the base, what I was hearing from pilots was this: First recon flight showed approximately 10 armor contacts in all positions to our south and east with full infantry support within 1500m. Second recon flight a few minutes later showed them within 600m. Order of march? No, it became a holding action. Survival. I marked a holding line on the map, I marked Killzones for each unit, and everyone got to work. We held much better than I expected. All during disconnects, JIPs, and more and more random patrols.

                        ...and if you will recall, the enemy was so constant and overwhelming, there was no marching. There was fighting. With more fighting. Comms were busy because units were communicating what they needed. When a bird went down, we needed a perimeter so engineering could repair it. Do you need an "axis of approach" told to you? Most of the time, no, you do not. You are here. I gave you a marker and/or six-digit-gridref there... it isn't high science to explain, and I trust a competent team leader to approach that marker better than I do on a map. I trust the team leader to make those choices, and I'm not in love with my voice... but I'll get to that in a moment, let me finish trying to understand the incongruent pictures of the mission that I've seen from your perspective and mine from last night.

                        You claim a lack of interoperability... I heard direct comms on Channel Commander between teams quite a bit.

                        You claim no plan... when every team is fighting for survival, I think the overall plan was clear. I was inundated with recon reports that were... alarming to say the least. I was coordinating with CAS and your critical MGS asset (with a driver that was making random circles, as you informed me) while giving teams waypoints and trying to hold our line... Krause, how could you miss that much radio communcation and planning and claim you heard "no planning"? Did you turn off your Teamspeak? Honestly, are we even talking about the same battle? At any rate, when basic survival was secured, I developed new waypoints so we could continue toward our "assault" (which was a near-death defense for the first hour). An infil team (1-1-B) was inserted over the minefield south of Grishino (no AT though, oops). A team (1-1-E) was already in position at the west border. Remaining teams (mostly 1-1-C) were at the northern border check point. When the assault started, it went better than I ever expected. 1-1-E penetrated the border VERY well (I was surprised), 1-1-C took harder casualties than anyone wanted, but they got a tough job done (easily the toughest part at the north guardpost), and the inserted mixed rifleteam (mostly 1-1-B) could reveal themselves and hit infantry targets from their hideout near LZ Disco. Again, Krause, what are you talking about, "no plan"? Does this not seem like a well developed plan? A two border attack with a third inserted team? Were you disappointed that I didn't draw alot of dots on the map during briefing? You do realize that they would have been worthless, right? After the first five minutes, our town assault became a holy-hell-don't-get-overrun defense less than 500m from our starting point. Besides, once we fought our way to the first objective, I clarified a plan for all the team.

                        So after reading above, does that sound like "no plan"? Again, I have to ask you if you had Teamspeak turned on, if you are talking about the same battle, and what you actually expect to hear/see in Arma 2 leadership. I understand that you had your own problems with your MGS crew, and I think that is skewing your memory. I was actually very frustrated with your asset, because you were the primary tank killer in our force and could not seem to get your weapon in the correct place for most of the battle.

                        This brings me to piece of advice number two. COs who fall in love with their planning phase... and their own voice.

                        Some missions do not require a long planning phase. Some missions do. Here's an example of a mission that requires careful planning. Insanely difficult mission with 8 Spez soldiers doing a night time stealth mission while heavily outnumbered. It requires ninja placement, and extremely precise hitting of the target, and all targets must be downed FAST. Very static planning, but goes very dynamic, and you will know if you have won or lost the mission usually within 60 seconds.

                        Other missions only require a general plan. We will all move here, all dismount, assess the situation and assault.

                        Finally, last night's mission is the kind of mission that defies planning. Go ahead, draw dots and fall in love with them. Listen to your own beautiful voice and fall in love with it. Give a convoy order. A marching order. When you have 10 pieces of armor within 400m-700m of base, you will get your priorities in order rather quickly. Bring all guns to bear on those targets before we are completely overrun. Draw pretty dots and discuss whatever else later.

                        Don't be that guy who second guesses another person's hard work with four sentences of unconstructive, sterilized "feedback" and then closes it with a condescending statement about how "Dynamic environments are part of tactics." After your full four sentences, what I see clearly is how little you understood the situation of the platoon at the start of last night's mission, nor how little you really understand how dynamic the environment and tactics were last night. The tactics were dynamic to the hilt. Team leaders were showing dynamic tactics, and that's why we had a low casualty count and destroyed such a comparatively high number of enemies.

                        In my opinion, what you have said is neither constructive nor accurate. I'll be blunt with you, Krause. There's no way on Earth you could have handled that better. Call that a challenge. Get 33 other players together and beat Grishino in less than 1:45 minutes. And do it with all the style, grace, and marching orders that you think will win, but somehow I don't think they will help when all hell breaks loose. I'll leave version 1.04b up for you. You have completely overestimated your skills, understimated the difficulty of Untern Lehrgangen, and completely discounted what was going on in the commander's seat. That f***er is the hardest CO job I've ever seen.

                        I found out what Unternehmen Lehrgang means. It means "Enterprise Course" ---as in a huge test. I will suggest leaving it exactly as it is on the server with the goal of only beating the first objective (for the sake of time).


                        NOTE: You did give one very good piece of advice: taskforce leaders. When attaching two teams together, I should make one of the team leaders a taskforce leader too. It would reduce my need to control both units individually if I designate a taskforce leader. I'll take that idea forward.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Mod Untern Lehrgangen v1.04b

                          Originally posted by 1longtime View Post
                          This deserves a separate post.



                          You have alot to learn, both about leading and about writing a constructive AAR. So let me give you two pieces of advice.

                          First, the constructive AAR. Giving feedback in some sort of context is helpful. Giving feedback in a vacuum is not.

                          For instance, stating that "basic things such as an order of march can be effected" sounds like a good piece of advice, except it's completely sterilized from the context of last night's mission. By the time we were prepared to leave base, the convoy order was a moot point, which I immediately scratched, and if you think about it and were in my chair you would understand why. Before we even left the base, what I was hearing from pilots was this: First recon flight showed approximately 10 armor contacts in all positions to our south and east with full infantry support within 1500m. Second recon flight a few minutes later showed them within 600m. Order of march? No, it became a holding action. Survival. I marked a holding line on the map, I marked Killzones for each unit, and everyone got to work. We held much better than I expected. All during disconnects, JIPs, and more and more random patrols.

                          ...and if you will recall, the enemy was so constant and overwhelming, there was no marching. There was fighting. With more fighting. Comms were busy because units were communicating what they needed. When a bird went down, we needed a perimeter so engineering could repair it. Do you need an "axis of approach" told to you? Most of the time, no, you do not. You are here. I gave you a marker and/or six-digit-gridref there... it isn't high science to explain, and I trust a competent team leader to approach that marker better than I do on a map. I trust the team leader to make those choices, and I'm not in love with my voice... but I'll get to that in a moment, let me finish trying to understand the incongruent pictures of the mission that I've seen from your perspective and mine from last night.

                          You claim a lack of interoperability... I heard direct comms on Channel Commander between teams quite a bit.

                          You claim no plan... when every team is fighting for survival, I think the overall plan was clear. I was inundated with recon reports that were... alarming to say the least. I was coordinating with CAS and your critical MGS asset (with a driver that was making random circles, as you informed me) while giving teams waypoints and trying to hold our line... Krause, how could you miss that much radio communcation and planning and claim you heard "no planning"? Did you turn off your Teamspeak? Honestly, are we even talking about the same battle? At any rate, when basic survival was secured, I developed new waypoints so we could continue toward our "assault" (which was a near-death defense for the first hour). An infil team (1-1-B) was inserted over the minefield south of Grishino (no AT though, oops). A team (1-1-E) was already in position at the west border. Remaining teams (mostly 1-1-C) were at the northern border check point. When the assault started, it went better than I ever expected. 1-1-E penetrated the border VERY well (I was surprised), 1-1-C took harder casualties than anyone wanted, but they got a tough job done (easily the toughest part at the north guardpost), and the inserted mixed rifleteam (mostly 1-1-B) could reveal themselves and hit infantry targets from their hideout near LZ Disco. Again, Krause, what are you talking about, "no plan"? Does this not seem like a well developed plan? A two border attack with a third inserted team? Were you disappointed that I didn't draw alot of dots on the map during briefing? You do realize that they would have been worthless, right? After the first five minutes, our town assault became a holy-hell-don't-get-overrun defense less than 500m from our starting point. Besides, once we fought our way to the first objective, I clarified a plan for all the team.

                          So after reading above, does that sound like "no plan"? Again, I have to ask you if you had Teamspeak turned on, if you are talking about the same battle, and what you actually expect to hear/see in Arma 2 leadership. I understand that you had your own problems with your MGS crew, and I think that is skewing your memory. I was actually very frustrated with your asset, because you were the primary tank killer in our force and could not seem to get your weapon in the correct place for most of the battle.

                          This brings me to piece of advice number two. COs who fall in love with their planning phase... and their own voice.

                          Some missions do not require a long planning phase. Some missions do. Here's an example of a mission that requires careful planning. Insanely difficult mission with 8 Spez soldiers doing a night time stealth mission while heavily outnumbered. It requires ninja placement, and extremely precise hitting of the target, and all targets must be downed FAST. Very static planning, but goes very dynamic, and you will know if you have won or lost the mission usually within 60 seconds.

                          Other missions only require a general plan. We will all move here, all dismount, assess the situation and assault.

                          Finally, last night's mission is the kind of mission that defies planning. Go ahead, draw dots and fall in love with them. Listen to your own beautiful voice and fall in love with it. Give a convoy order. A marching order. When you have 10 pieces of armor within 400m-700m of base, you will get your priorities in order rather quickly. Bring all guns to bear on those targets before we are completely overrun. Draw pretty dots and discuss whatever else later.

                          Don't be that guy who second guesses another person's hard work with four sentences of unconstructive, sterilized "feedback" and then closes it with a condescending statement about how "Dynamic environments are part of tactics." After your full four sentences, what I see clearly is how little you understood the situation of the platoon at the start of last night's mission, nor how little you really understand how dynamic the environment and tactics were last night. The tactics were dynamic to the hilt. Team leaders were showing dynamic tactics, and that's why we had a low casualty count and destroyed such a comparatively high number of enemies.

                          In my opinion, what you have said is neither constructive nor accurate. I'll be blunt with you, Krause. There's no way on Earth you could have handled that better. Call that a challenge. Get 33 other players together and beat Grishino in less than 1:45 minutes. And do it with all the style, grace, and marching orders that you think will win, but somehow I don't think they will help when all hell breaks loose. I'll leave version 1.04b up for you. You have completely overestimated your skills, understimated the difficulty of Untern Lehrgangen, and completely discounted what was going on in the commander's seat. That f***er is the hardest CO job I've ever seen.

                          I found out what Unternehmen Lehrgang means. It means "Enterprise Course" ---as in a huge test. I will suggest leaving it exactly as it is on the server with the goal of only beating the first objective (for the sake of time).


                          NOTE: You did give one very good piece of advice: taskforce leaders. When attaching two teams together, I should make one of the team leaders a taskforce leader too. It would reduce my need to control both units individually if I designate a taskforce leader. I'll take that idea forward.
                          Rawr!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Mod Untern Lehrgangen v1.04b

                            Originally posted by tyrspawn View Post
                            Rawr!
                            Check out the Karl Down AAR, I got you good there.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Mod Untern Lehrgangen v1.04b

                              Originally posted by 1longtime View Post
                              Check out the Karl Down AAR, I got you good there.
                              No you actually didn't - you are butthurt and its hilarious. I wont have a pissing match with you, I was talking about tactics and employment, and you are taking things personal. Your claims are false - simple as that. Attacking an area without any idea of what is there is foolish. Your hyperbole on the amount of time waiting is extravagant.

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X