More infantry focus

[[Ret]Finchy]

I see a number of problems here, where assets are invovled-

-to many assets are on the battlefield from one team alone [1-2xtank and 2xattack helicopers is way to much to be on the battlefield at one time]
-Assets can be brought back to the battlefield way to fast, there has to be some benefit from shooting a helicopter down in the first place!

In my opinion the tournament needs to stear much more towards infantry combat in a battle of 25 per team I'd probably have said 1 tank and chopper, each with an extended period of inactivity after death needs to be implimented.

[[Ret]Finchy]

Gonna alaborate a little more


There is a limit of ONE of each type of attack aircraft allowed in the air at the same time for each army. (Cobra/AH6/Rocket Mi17/UH FFARS). However, any number of transport aircraft may be airborne at anytime. (MH6/MG Mi/UH)If this rule is correc the US can have 3 attack choppers in the air as 1 time (AH6, UH60 FFAR and Cobra), luckily thought they havent done this but that rule definoutly needs changing (this is based on the capability of both teams to field 3 choppers, I'm just saying US because they are teh enemy)

[{7}9th|Maj.ArMaTeC]

the rules are one of each type at any one time. Plz remember i was in the RUS VVS before i was UN so i know the RUS would have 3 choppers up and so would the US. you also need to take in to account that both army's also have a sam and hand held AA.
I have to agree that a delay after a chopper/tank/sam is killed would help balance it out but on the other hand its up to the army's what they put in play as it has a cost for each chopper.
________
Model B (1904) (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Ford_Model_B_(1904))

[[Ret]Finchy]

All of tour 2 so far has been a total mist of choppers and tanks, I see more choppers and tanks than I do infantry. Its all good and well to say SAM's and handheld AA's, but the handheld AA becomes useless after all rockets have been fired (which doesnt take long with the number of helicopters we see, they arent even really that effective at times). For once I'd just like to see a 30minute period where its purely infantry, no assets around to worry about or anything.

[{7}9th|Maj.ArMaTeC]

understood bro maybe CP2
________
WIFE MASTURBATING WHILE SUCKING (http://www.****tube.com/video/18377/slim-masturbates-while-sucking-a-cock)

[Goldman]

-Assets can be brought back to the battlefield way to fast...

you're right !
Infantry somehow can mysteriously and instanty "startrek"-wharp into vehicles at the frontline 10 km away...
And out of nothing appear behind my tank again, just 1 minute after I shot them.

ok sorry, could not resist typing that. :D

A more constructive reply:
Any vehicle is back at the fronline fast, if the frontline is at their door.
But believe me, driving a tank from US main to Corazol takes a lot of (boring) time...

[[Ret]Finchy]

1 infantryman has a lot less dominance in an area than a tank, although I can imagine the drive is long the tanks are still getting to the front to fast, theres very little time to breath after one is destroyed, and as I understand it your tanks are actually being spawned at eponia (which is only a 2minute drive from bagango).

[{7}9th|GinSoakedBoy]

TB|Cpt.Goldman;65170']But believe me, driving a tank from US main to Corazol takes a lot of (boring) time...

I can attest to that, very long.

I disagree though, I think the balance is fine, it'd be dull and unrealistic to have just infantry. Things aren't that over-powered at the moment it's just a slight lack of co-ordination really.

[[IRT]Super64]

The balance is fine. There are a lot of factors you're not even thinking about Finch.

First, like AT said, the Russians can ALSO field the same number of helo's as the US. So don't try to make it sound like the US is fielding this fleet of attack helo's while the poor Russians side can only watch with their one transport helo.

Second, you say, "...there has to be some benefit from shooting a helicopter down in the first place!". Ask your General how much an Attack helo like the Mi-17 with rockets or a Russian Cobra costs. Either army can only afford to lose so many per battle day before they run out or just ground the air force. There's your benefit to shooting them down. There is not an endless supply.

Third, I hate hearing people think the SAM or the shoulder AA is a simple process of Aim, Fire and Kill against the helo's. You have to learn when to fire. And no, im not going to train you when that time is.

Like GinSoakedBoy said, there is no imbalance. Its more an issue of an army coordinating its defense and efforts.

[Moody]

And as Goldman pointed out, consider how far into our part of the island we were fighting today.

I can assure you the flight from USAir isnt exactly thrilling either, though not as bad as the tanks I'm sure....

And infantry isn't the only part of the tourney here- putting a handicap on a large part of the armies isn't particularly fair when you get to wait a minute and respawn back into action. (And I spent 9 months as full time infantry)

Certainly doesn't help that you're AF seemed to be fielding only a handful of birds too......(:

What may seem like a slight overpowering today may have been to actions that originated from the previous couple of weeks as well, and that is how the war is supposed to go.

[{UN}.Nurmdog]

Finch, I agree that sometimes it seems there are too many assets on the battle field. I think what would help that would be if each side had ~2 Armor and ~3 choppers but had ~40 Infantry on the ground, that would be more fun!

But remember, during Tour 1 the US had to deal with the Russians charging in to Cayo with multiple Choppers, 2 M1A1, and a BMP2 at the same time! We had nothing but ATs and a Little Bird to defend! You talk about not fun, but we did it without complaining. :cool:

If people want to explore more boots and less metal I suggest you PM your council members, your general, and maybe the UN and let them know how you feel.

Currently I am ok with the mix if we could just get more infantry on both sides, today with the help of UN we were nearly even.

[[8]72|Pvt.SnowMan]

Myself, I'd like to see a huge armor battle without the infantry.

[[UN]SGen.ViperMaul]

LOL -> Snowman!!
Classic! :)

[[Ret]Finchy]

Everyone seems to think I am having a go at the US here, I'm not, I am simple saying that the max number any army can field at one time is to much for the number of players we have turning out for each team. The assets cost obviosutly isnt having any effect because for the past few battles we have seen constant streams of assets, and its getting tiring. If we had more people on each team fair enough I can see a reason to raise the number of assets but what ever, looks like everyones clearly against me on this.

At the minute the tournament seems more like an arcade game than anything remotely realistic.

[[DI]I|Cpl.Dren]

Actually im happy for the balance of inf / armored+helo's.
Tanks are as sceary as they should be, you dont see them much, but when you do the panic starts.
And adding "higher respawn timer" for helos, well shooting one down is enough cheering on other side and crying on the other.
Just aim and shoot with your 15m tubes on them, it makes them go pale, or even cold in bodybag.

Ouh sneaky Finch was quicker...

I dont think anyone is against you Finch. i will start big screaming,kicking and crying show when i do see more than one m1a1 on field. Far as i know, theres no limit for tanks on field, but there should be.
Helos, well 1 Cobra, UH-60/mi-17 and LB(MH-6). Thats 2 with guns and another of them is big and easy to drop down.
You have shitloads of assets to bring all these down, helos wont go near good placed SAM.

But anyway, i can agree, i dont want this to be arcade gaming.
But atm we are good on what we have in air and ground.
And theres allready too much russian inf allround for me anyway :D

[{UN}.Nurmdog]

{7}21|Finch
If we had more people on each team fair enough I can see a reason to raise the number of assets but what ever, looks like everyones clearly against me on this.
1. I hope you don't feel like everyone is against you. I see your point and would like more infantry, but under current rules having 2 choppers and 1 tank out in the field isn't a bad thing. I think we just need more boots on the ground to balance things better, bring friends.

2. I don't think we will raise the number of assets on the field, although I wonder if we should limit them. 2 Main Battle Tanks on the field at a time is nasty. 1 of each chopper type is fair (which we have as a rule).

3. More choppers got shot down the last 2 battles than usual, on both sides. New AA missiles are doing the job.

[Goldman]

Everyone seems to think I am having a go at the US here, I'm not

You seem to think we are against you, we are not.
It's a forum, we just discuss your suggestion.



The assets cost obviously isn't having any effect because for the past few battles we have seen constant streams of assets, and its getting tiring.

not true, last 3 battles the US had very little resources
I even had to fight 1 whole battleday on foot with my crew ! zero tanks



At the minute the tournament seems more like an arcade game than anything remotely realistic.

I already told you, I agree with you on that:
2/3 of all tournament players can die 99 times without costs and somehow within 1 minute
mysteriously and instanty "startrek"-wharp into vehicles at the frontline again... 10 km away
Appearing behind my tank again, just 1 minute after I shot them.

Talking about realism...:rolleyes:

[[DI]I|Cpl.Dren]

http://www.abdn.ac.uk/virtualmuseum/images/misc/arrow_up.gif Someone is pissed about "beam me up spok"

[[IRT]Super64]

Finch its not that I feel you are 'having a go' at the US side. I just get defensive when ground guys start demanding changes in the armies Air Forces. Especially when they've never been in the air here at AToW. Keeping an aircraft alive is very difficult to start with. And when you lose a Cobra, we might as well replace the explosion sound with the "Cha-Ching$$$" sound of a cash register. Because at 7000 man hour a pop, it truly hurts to see one go down.

I think yesterday you may have felt we were everywhere because as the battle pushed north to Merc castle and Hill 181, its entering the heart of US territory.... the hornets nest. haha And once you hit the hornets nest with a rock, we defend it with fury and anger. :) Ok actually we just had a shorter trip to rearm, which kept us in the AO more often. But i like the hornet reference. lol

[{7}21|Squid]

Yeah, Finch doesn’t have a problem with any team’s tactics at all, he’s not complaining about that. Just the combat in these last battles has been pretty dull.

We’re operating in only small numbers of infantry most of the time because of the spread out nature of the flags in this area and that a large portion of the team is manning assets. And when we do get the numbers together to cap a flag within the small cap zones we’re getting air struck off, which is very tedious; espcially since it doesn’t seem to require that much skill or teamwork to coordinate an airstrike on a flag, just offloading rockets into the flag zone (I could be wrong, it certainly feels like that on the ground).

When the fight was in the town we had intense infantry combat where we could operate as proper squads with tanks supporting and the occasional daring air strike. With the flags being closer together a whole teams anti air assets could be brought to bare. I do like that the battle changes away from the main towns to some extent, but as it is I’m personally not getting much excitement on battle day.

Part of the problem is doubtless the drop in numbers fighting per side, and we’ve no way to adjust the assets for that. We’re able to use the same number of assets as if we had over 60 noobs. At the moment there’s tanks, AAV, and up to 3 attack helo’s to man, leaving precious few troops to make up the infantry support. Then of course you have the SF troops to send out looking for MHQ’s etc, probably armed with a mighty LD. Any team not using their most powerful assets would be foolish, so no complaints about teams doing that, it’s just becoming boring over this section of the map and with so few people to engage. Then of course we still have super human AI in the game which is soooo frustrating and feels like a big waste of time whether killing them or being killed by them.

Some of us do feel that battles are becoming arcadey. This seems silly because the infantry combat, when it happens, is the probably the most realistic of any gaming imo. The tanks aren’t that realistic, but they’re alright, and coordinating air strikes with the attack helo’s would be cool. But having so many assets supporting so few troops certainly doesn’t seem realistic. Capping flags is fine, as you have to take and hold ground on the battlefield, but when it’s only a small cap zone which is sometimes not a strategic location that choppers can easily clean off it does feel somewhat arcadey.

[[IRT]Super64]

Well Squid, it might be a case of perception. I don't want to give away too many details for tactical reasons, but yesterday the US MAW was operating with only 2 pilots. Everyone else was ground based. Tactics have to be adapted based on what your enemy is doing. An army must be flexible. Now, I have no idea what the VVS situation was on Sunday. But while we were trying to bomb ground targets back to the stone age, not once was I faced with one of my favorite JimmytheD vs Super64 dog fights. lol I spent the afternoon shooting down Ru!ner in his transport aircraft. But its those dog fights that keep the pressure off ground forces and give the SAM's easy targets.

[[DI]I|Cpl.Dren]

Let us back in Corazol and everyone is happy, right? ;)

[{RET}Snake Raper]

It almost sounds like Hill 181 is the Reds version of our Hill 148, fight to the top to get wiped off. Any idea how many times I went up that hill to be "ganked"? :D

We have been to battle with 1 helo and 1 tank, our stellar defence of Cayo comes to mind, 5 weeks of the same battle, of the same asset shortage, of the same ass pounding and I liked it (except for the ass pounding :p). I agree that more infantry is good, but not at the cost of support. You need boots on the ground to take and hold ground, but once you have what you determine is enough to accomplish that, you fill up on support to make sure those 10-20 guys can be as effective as 50-100.

I run my section/team like a very small platoon, I ask armour and air for support to make my trip 'up the hill' easier and get my men on objective alive. This isn't "arcadey", this is war fought with combined arms support and it is called the advance.

The down side is that there is not enough support for all to enjoy this kind of realism all of the time. This is where it comes down to allocation of resources which is the responsibility of the leadership in HQ. When I can't have support, I suck it up and attack. As a grunt I don't want to "die" for nothing or for stupid repetitive assaults, I play to live, I play for realism (or as much as I can get within the constraints of a game).

I know where you are coming from, but it is the management of resources that gives the edge to an otherwise balanced war. Battles 4 and 5 represent some of the most fun I have had in AToW to date (an awesome assault on Hill 148 was another).

PS If you don't want to get pounded into dust on Hill 181, please leave it be and I will join you in Corazol for some nice infantry oriented urban warfare.;)

[[IRT]36th|CPL.OV3RLORD]

I think that some people are forgetting the battle at Cayo, with bout 2 M1A1's 3 BMP's and a Shilka all at the same time attacking us and did you hear us complain bout "it's not fun" and we should limt the "amout of assest"? NO. We sucked it up and kept fighting.

It also sounds like you guys don't have people rocking up and thats not a 2MEF problem it yours.

[{7}9th|GinSoakedBoy]

Woah, let's not imply that all Russians are having a problem with this, I don't and I'm sure there are plenty of others who don't, it just seems to be a few people.

[[IRT]Super64]

True, we don't think that Gin. But i do think this topic has run its course and has been beaten thoroughly. lol

[[IRT]36th|CPL.OV3RLORD]

I didn't say all Russains just some people forgot or don't know that you guys surrounded us with armour, infantry and helo's in 5 battles in a row and we only had 3 M1A1's, HMMWV TOW's, 4 AH-6 and a Cobra to help us (for all 5 battles). And we didn't complain as it was all in the rules and we just sat there and said "you arn't gonna take us out of this town"

[Steveak44]

This isn't Red vs. Blue. If you want to take pride in getting pasted last tour - fine. You didn't complain. Great. I would have. It was gay watching it. Finch and some others are not enjoying the grunt game. I was bored getting pasted by air yesterday. With a few exceptions, I was bored watching Blue get pasted last tour. It doesn't matter who has asset superiority because it sucks either way if you like to actively participate in the battle besides running/driving then dieing.

For what its worth I don't think the problem is the number of assets. Assets are just often doing some easy killing. The problem, imo, is the objective system. Objectives are usually taken by infantry. Most have little to zero cover and you have to sit there for whatever the timer is. Sitting in an exposed position for an extended period of time that everyone knows you are in is death to infantry. It makes my skin crawl every time I have to go sit in some radius watching my timer waiting to get spammed.

Unfortunately, the infantry game will not get any better for the shooters 'til we get into the urban environment.

[[IRT]Super64]

Steveak, that is a good point you are making. Perhaps for Campaign 2 we make sure each objective is more fortified. We put indestructible forts at each objective. But maybe there needs to be more of them, or make the radius of the objective a network of the small forts. That way a single rocket strike cannot cover all the sheltered areas. I don't want to turn this thread into a Campaign 2 topic list. But if thats a true gripe the ground guys have, you gotta let it be known. You've been around here long enough to know only input from we players will shape this into something everyone wants to play in. Tell your Council Reps!

[Steveak44]

Super, you know I've been begging for over a year to get rid of the damn timers. They are the root of all evil.

[[IRT]Super64]

Super, you know I've been begging for over a year to get rid of the damn timers. They are the root of all evil.

Well if you remember, the timer system was created to keep this from becoming a game of BF2. Rush into the radius for 30 seconds, then rush to the next one..... repeat. The timer slows the pace of battle and lets enemy forces meet each other and contest over the given terrain.

If you don't like the timers, what alternative do you have in mind as a replacement?

[Steveak44]

I remember. The cause of that is too much terrain/objective for the number of people on the map.

Replacement: ditch the timers, keep the numbers factor, less options in the link system, more spawn locations (infantry at any held objective - vehicles at large objectives).

[[DI]I|Cpl.Dren]

COD4: Theatre of War

[Steveak44]

RB|1Lt.Dren;65301']COD4: Theatre of War


Na. Not random spawning like COD4 if that is what you are referring to, Dren. At least there is action in COD4. I'm just using this thread as another place to spew my mantra of 'no timers-more action'. I really enjoy the community but the action level needs to at least triple before I would stop thinking about not playing after every 5 hr. block of Sunday I waste. A contact every 20 minutes is not fun for me. If ya'll like the pace thats fine. To each his own.

[[DI]I|Cpl.Dren]

I think the most BEST way to increase it, is to get battle attance higher.
Or russians could stop blowing up pur MHQ's, then you would see more action on field ;)

[{7}21|Squid]

Agree with Steveak, but it is a really difficult problem to get around, and I hate the idea of it turning into ‘whack-a-mole’ flag hop. A more linier advance would produce more exciting game play imo, especially with the numbers we’re playing with.

I personally think it would be ideal if all the flags were of key strategic value to the area, and if within the flag zone you could prepare a defensive position. I think it’d be great if you could deploy static objects within a cap zone, each of which taking a time to build, and maybe turn houses into strongholds. So when you attack the flag you first have to locate the defensive positions and either destroy or take them over. This would allow the cap zones to be potentially quite large, but the action within them remaining focussed and unpredictable.

Instead of MHQ’s you could build FOB’s within ‘your area’ to stop the silly teleporting behind enemy lines guff. At a cost you could perhaps forward spawn wheeled transport to these FOB’s, although I’m in favour of making SF troops work hard to get behind the lines.

It sucks you can’t dig trenches, but you could create concealed positions and some hard cover if someone made good custom static’s and a way to select and deploy them. Such a solution would be a mammoth project and would obviously need to be discussed outside of this thread.

I don’t want to be bitching and whining because my team’s losing, especially since we’re not! ;) I’m just looking for more exciting game play for both teams. Realism is always gonna be hard whilst we’ve got two technologically advanced armies battling in conventional warefare instead of reflecting modern Asymmetric conflicts.

[[DI]I|Cpl.Dren]

I think best and easyest solution for this is, to get new map.
Atm theres no big or good maps released yet, so we need to keep waiting.

[BazookaBoy]

Indeed one part of the issue is the map. Bottom line is that this island does not easily lend itself to providing a balanced map so it restricted the area that can be played without giving an advantage.

We had people who were bored of fighting over towns and we had played the north and south islands as individual battle grounds but never together. We had people saying the fighting was spread out and the capture process could be better. As always we take all of the comments on board and try to work out how to combine and balance the ideas as best as we can.

For those that don't know I designed the layout for this one and it was based on comments from previous campaigns/tests. Nothing is decided yet for Campaign 2 (it doesn't even need to be me that does the map). The networking system that Barmy produced is very flexible so we can investigate something quite different in terms of layout. I have a couple of ideas on how to mix things up a bit and being a ground pounder myself I'm always looking to find ways to improve the infantry combat.

I think geographically the current zones were in some interesting places, but I would agree that cover on some of them was not good enough. What I would say is that the style of play varies a lot as you move up and down the map as do the army's tactics, so you shouldn't base you opinions on how a particular couple of weeks turned out.

Even with that fact there are some lessons leaned which I am sure we will

[[DI]I|SSGT.Sprite]

Statics can be transported using scripts, as proven in domination. the scripts can be found here (http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=1970).

[[DI]I|Cpl.Dren]

Static M2's would be nice to see.
imo those should be only loaded to trucks

[[7]9|PA.ru!ner]

About the helo's - this is what RU did to the US the entire second half of T1. So they have had more than their share of pounding from the air without complaining about it.

One thing that could be done about this is moving the airfields farther out... possibly onto aircraft carriers for C2. Also requiring them to rearm at the airfield instead of a battlefield farp is another option.

[[IRT]Super64]

Steveak, instead of turning the game into COD4 with non-stop shooting. One way to leave a tactical element in, but at the same time increase the infantry action would be to reduce the satellite objectives around a main objective. So rather than 4 sats to cap, maybe just 3 or even 2. Or have it vary depending on where the main obj. was located. For example, a city like corazol would have 2 satellites and one main. Because it seems like a battle can get bogged down in corazol for 4 weeks.

As far as objective timers, they are pretty much needed or AToW simply becomes a 'wack-a-mole', BF2, COD4 base scramble. And I still haven't seen you suggest an alternative method. I also find interesting the "5 hr. block of Sunday you waste" because of boredom. Which is the complete opposite of the stuff I hear from my guys talking about how much fun they had and how many firefights and how much action they saw. Maybe you've been sitting on the Russian air island looking for US troops? lol

[[7]9|PA.ru!ner]

MAW|LtGen.Super64;65325']And I still haven't seen you suggest an alternative method. I also find interesting the "5 hr. block of Sunday you waste" because of boredom. Which is the complete opposite of the stuff I hear from my guys talking about how much fun they had and how many firefights and how much action they saw. Maybe you've been sitting on the Russian air island looking for US troops? lol

That or its because he is in a squad that doesn't see a lot of firefights lol.

[{RET}Snake Raper]

I do agree that some of the objectives are too bare and virtually impossible to take. I also agree that being able to place defences or at least have strong defenses present would be a great improvement.

(The 'you' and 'your' used below are no one in particular, just generic)

I will use the multiple battles of Hill 148 as an example as it had defensive works on it, but they were virtually useless. A tank or helo could blast the area from long range and nothing in the area could stop the shot except for the observation platform. They worked well for infantry fights and resulted in an exciting infantry assault that ultimately was ended by a tank.

Being able to build defences would be great, but how long to build? If it took 5 mins to build a bunker or a couple of walls, that is the cap time for a satellite so they will not help you in the capture process. Unless you are thinking that just by being in the area a predetermined set of defences gets built, the question would be where if you are in an urban environment.

Pre-built defences I think would be the better option, if the army was able to decide what and where. At the moment the linked objective system is based on someone's decision of what is important, granted most of the areas are of import but they may not be strategically important. If it were possible for each side to select it's own linking objectives (keep the City and Satellite as they are since towns are towns and what is of importance is common to all) within parameters. Example being when I attack Corazol from Bagango, Hill 181 is not important to me. It does have a dominating view, but maybe Hill 283 or Hill 101 is more of what I consider important. By letting the sides choose their own two linking objectives (and not knowing what they are), you will create a more strategic environment.

When you have selected a location, a pre-built "FOB" or base gets placed there, so one of the restrictions would be that it can fit there. Another might be that it has to be a certain distance from a city. The intent here would be that the sides do not know what is important to each other, they have to find it (which may not take long) and assault it. They may have chosen the same area, which would result in no defenses being built until one side does own it.

Lots of possibilities and above is by no means the answer, just a thought.

Time spent waiting to change an objective is a stressful time, but I like it as it adds intensity to the fight. Sure it gets angering to be in an area for 90% of the time only to lose a man you needed or get wiped off entirely, but if it was that close your side should have brought more to the table.

I would definately like to see more dynamic infantry battles and defences brought in, providing it doesn't get out of control with bunkers taking over half the battlefield, although in Cayo by the end of the 5th battle we would have built one hell of a base.

[[UN]SGen.ViperMaul]

Next Campaign, if no one objects, the reload times for Helo's and SAMs will be increased from the default flat rate of ~10 seconds regardless of number of ordinance. I do not know what that number should be yet. But I am thinking 30 seconds per missile and 20 seconds per Flare Pack.

So to fully reload a

Attack Helo Flares would take 60 seconds (3*20 seconds).
Attack Helo Remote Missiles would take 2 minutes (4*30 seconds).

Attack Helo with Flares & Missiles would take 3 minutes.
SAM would take 3 minutes (6*30 seconds).

This should help a little with this issue as well as make a more reasonable reload experience.

[[IRT]Super64]

Thats one idea VM. Although thats a topic of its own. I am assuming reload times for FFAR's cannot be changed and stays stock.

[[UN]SGen.ViperMaul]

Also with no objections we are going back to the ability that we were forced out of due to a bug, of allowing the soldier to carry 2 stinger/strella missiles instead of 1. Also each Ammo Truck will have 10 AA reloads available for infantry resupply FARPs.

Remember at this time there are only allowed two handheld AA launchers per team and the Attack Helos have 3 Flare Packs with a 10 second reload time. Once the AA soldier is out of ammo it will take way longer to get back to a FARP for reloads than a Helo can get to his.

This should also help with this issue.

[[UN]SGen.ViperMaul]

MAW|LtGen.Super64;65350']Thats one idea VM. Although thats a topic of its own. I am assuming reload times for FFAR's cannot be changed and stays stock.

I am talking Mando Missiles only. The FFARs can be changed. But I see no reason at this point to do extra work to change those stock reload times.

[[UN]SGen.ViperMaul]

As far as the balance in numbers of assets allowed on the field compared with the infantry, I too feel currently that terrain chosen, teamwork and tactics are key here.

I would guess that anywhere in history that where a hill like hill 181 was involved there wasn't alot of frustration for many people because they died pretty quickly. A lot of deaths I would imagine. Only those commanders left alive would be frustrated. But Hill 181 is the test of all tests of teamwork & tactics to capture & hold due to its very nature.

From my limited viewpoint due to fog of war, I would say the US Marines are doing a better job at employing their teamwork & tactics with respect to Hill 181 than Russians are at this point. This skills of their Pilots are making it worse which me being a Russian pisses me off. STOP KILLING OUR RUSSIANS! I look forward to the next battleday regarding famous Hill 181.

[[IRT]Super64]

STOP KILLING OUR RUSSIANS!

Fine... ok deal.








April Fools missiles inbound!! !! :D

[Steveak44]

Super,

I never wanted COD4. Dren brought that up. I do like action. A lot of it and on a large scale. I can't think of too many ArmA vids that show 4 or 5 guys run 1-2k and sit around a bunker and a tent for 10 minutes and repeat. Or same senario but maybe if they are lucky they get to fight 4 or 5 guys for it. Or get smoked by a rocket strike and repeat. Or tank drives across the map and gets mandoed then repeat.

Since I'm a grunt I look at the grunts on the score sheets. I see grunts averaging at best about 15-20 contacts per 3 hr. battle. If they love that pace like I said before thats fine. I am genuinely happy for them. It just doesn't fit for me.

I'll quote myself on the alternative system again since I guess you missed it. I'll expand a bit too. I didn't expand before because I figured you were well acquainted with my rantings. ;) They are basically unchanged since ArmAI.



Replacement: ditch the timers, keep the numbers factor, less options in the link system, more spawn locations (infantry at any held objective - vehicles at large objectives).

no timers:
-no more sitting in one spot waiting to get spammed.
-realism, I think. In my mind objectives are taken by killing or driving off the enemy not stopwatch and because one side has more guys hiding in it than the other.
I'll use my home as an example objective. The zone is my yard with my house. My squad is in the house and your squad is outside in the yard. I got 4 guys and you got 8 guys. In my mind you shouldn't get my house and yard in 15 minutes because you have more guys. You should only get it when you drag our dead bodies out or we run away.

less options in the link system:
Focus the fight. Maybe only 1 or 2 options are available after a capture. I want to see 20 or 40 people fight over an objective instead of the usual 4v4 or 5v5. I still feel this is wack-o-mole. Not enough players on the field for the number of available objectives. Often we are sitting on uncontested objectives watching timers. Then running off to the next or back to the one the other team just took. We are still chasing each other.

numbers factor:
Changed my mind. Scrap it. If the timers are gone and objectives are less its not necessary to have x number of players in the zone.

more spawn locations:
Since we don't have that many players for size of the map and number of available objectives - get what we have back to the front faster to simulate more players. For instance I would love to see an armored battle. Maybe if they didn't have to drive so far and had more spawn location options it wouldn't be so easy to pick them off with Air or SpecOps. Then they might actually get to engage each other.



I am not trying to disrespect the current system or its creators. I feel it would be an excellent system (minus the timers of course ;) ) if we were playing 50vs50 or more on this map.

Like I think somebody said something about being in the wrong unit. Since this is all based on my experiences maybe I've just had a bad year.

[[DI]I|Cpl.Dren]

Well steve your idea would work if it would be Attack / Defend.
That could be cool also, one side attacks and another defends. When the attackers beat defenders in one town, game moves for 2nd one.

But removing cap timers would go more than now for cat and mouse game