Comrades in Arms Discussion Board

(12-28-2009, 12:05 PM)mikka link Wrote: [ -> ]I did  ;D



All objectives ticked but there was no time and no a sense to run myself to extraction point 

good job anyway!

The mission progress wasy slow, in my opinion. I thought this one would be a cool and fast paced assault action map, but not exactly... I wish others still can enjoy this gaming style, and this is the kind of realism you were after from the pre-planned missions. For me, it doesn't feel right... sorry.

(12-29-2009, 02:29 AM)RKDmitriyev link Wrote: [ -> ]My computer crashed, as you probably figured out. It seems to have a knack for crashing whenever the mission gets too fun. Sorry guys. :-\ :-[

Yeah, Kurtz, we understood that you crashed, no worries about that. You just got some bad luck.

PS. and good job, Hawke, for taking lead.

(12-29-2009, 12:41 PM)Osku link Wrote: [ -> ]The mission progress wasy slow, in my opinion. I thought this one would be a cool and fast paced assault action map, but not exactly... I wish others still can enjoy this gaming style, and this is the kind of realism you were after from the pre-planned missions. For me, it doesn't feel right... sorry.

Hopefully, once christmas is over I can get back to making SLX AI work, and it will help improve missions like this. In the current version im working on, it needs a more agressive playstyle otherwise you just get pinned and flattened.

Quote:The mission progress wasy slow, in my opinion. I thought this one would be a cool and fast paced assault action map, but not exactly... I wish others still can enjoy this gaming style, and this is the kind of realism you were after from the pre-planned missions. For me, it doesn't feel right... sorry.

I agree fully, this mission as well as death harbor should be played through much faster. It seemed we were camped out for quite awhile at the first objective until it was decided to send Siil, myself and I think Tony up the hill to the east to act as cannon fodder. We took out a good number of enemy infantry, if we had more support we could have done a better job, but the three us didn't stand a chance against the number of troops we were facing. It wasn't long before we were all killed.

Some of us have played this mission in past years on other servers where it's more of a rambo style, but the pace is much quicker. There is nothing wrong with planning, but it should not be the main focus. Once again I'd like to refer to Shack Tactical's approach where moving on to the next objective is primary and not planning out every step as you go. Marines adapt and overcome, there should be a happy medium between strategy, action and player enjoyment. After all OFP is known as an FPS (First Person Shooter) and not an RTS (Real Time Strategy) game.  :-\

While I agree with you about 'Death Harbor', I don't think that sunday's map was too slow. I was never bored, not even when I had to wait for Osku to walk all the way back to the medic tent and come back. Observing the surroundings keeps one busy. I also find it more than natural to wait several minutes in the same spot after last enemy contact. I choose completing a map over action anytime, and in 99% of the cases those two things don't work together. And I wonder, for anyone that absolutely disgarees here, if OFP is still the game for them.
Considering your squad serving as cannon fodder: I understand that pisses you off, but it was the leader's decision. Later my squad was tasked with clearing a depression, and as soon as I got the order I knew that was the death sentence to my squad. But leader's decision once again. It may suck (and be wrong), you have to carry orders out anyway, that's how these missions work. If you don't like that you shouldn't participate, or take the leader slot.
I for one think these missions have an undeniable beauty: 20 players advancing in an organized way; you either cover a flank, thus the other players rely on you, or you know the flank is covered by another squad, and you know you can rely on them. I never wanna go back to the 'old style'´, where every player does what he wants when he wants where he wants, where actions wins over anything. Coop means team spirit. The pre-planned missions convey that perfectly.

(12-30-2009, 03:58 PM)Hawke link Wrote: [ -> ]I never wanna go back to the 'old style'´, where every player does what he wants when he wants where he wants, where actions wins over anything. Coop means team spirit.

I can hardly remember a single situation in which 'anyone did anything he wants' in our coop nights for the past two or three years since I'm around. Teamplay always has been good here and the preplanned missions did not reinvent the wheel, only bring it to a different shape 

While I was not present in this last preplanned mission and taking a bit more time to consolidate and advance more cautiously in those missions hasn't been a showstopper for me until now I'm certainly noticing the critic about too slow tempo in the mission and will try to pace things up when I'm in charge next time. As the platoon commander you should not only be managing your squads but also the fun of the players under your command. E. g. I try to switch supporting and attacking squads in the course of the mission so that everyone gets the chance to be directly involved in the action and not pulling security all the time or being upset about slow progress of the mission.

I want to encourage everyone to try the platoon commander slot yourself, it's a fun experience and I even find it less difficult than being a squadleader because as platoon commander you only have to deal with 2 or 3 (maybe 4) subordinate squadleaders whereas as a squadleader you normally have to manage 6 to 12 players under your direct command and micromanage a lot more than on platoon level.

(12-30-2009, 03:58 PM)Hawke link Wrote: [ -> ]I was never bored. . . Observing the surroundings keeps one busy. I also find it more than natural to wait several minutes in the same spot after last enemy contact. I choose completing a map over action anytime, and in 99% of the cases those two things don't work together. And I wonder, for anyone that absolutely disgarees here, if OFP is still the game for them (italics mine).
. . .leader's decision. . . It may suck (and be wrong), you have to carry orders out anyway, that's how these missions work. If you don't like that you shouldn't participate, or take the leader slot (emphasis mine).
I for one think these missions have an undeniable beauty: 20 players advancing in an organized way; you either cover a flank, thus the other players rely on you, or you know the flank is covered by another squad, and you know you can rely on them. I never wanna go back to the 'old style'´, where every player does what he wants when he wants where he wants, where actions wins over anything. Coop means team spirit. The pre-planned missions convey that perfectly.

I pretty much agree (of course, during this mission, I died early. . .). I think that these missions are still "in beta" here - over time, we'll become accustomed to what missions require and what are the various leadership styles of those who step up and take the command slots. On this last - as always, all leadership slots are open to all, so if you feel inclined, the option to lead this whole bunch of gamers is there for you to choose.

Edit:

(12-29-2009, 02:18 PM)Mjolnir link Wrote: [ -> ][quote author=Osku link=topic=2021.msg11150#msg11150 date=1262083298]
The mission progress wasy slow, in my opinion. I thought this one would be a cool and fast paced assault action map, but not exactly... I wish others still can enjoy this gaming style, and this is the kind of realism you were after from the pre-planned missions. For me, it doesn't feel right... sorry.

Hopefully, once christmas is over I can get back to making SLX AI work, and it will help improve missions like this. In the current version im working on, it needs a more agressive playstyle otherwise you just get pinned and flattened.
[/quote]

I would like AI in missions to react more aggressively than what we've seen in a few of these missions (in the first engagement in 'Death Harbor', I thought the AI should have been a lot more active - they were alerted, but remained, for the most part, passive). I have seen a mission where a small group of AI flanked our position on the right - more of this and more aggression would be welcome, with or without GL3 (though GL3 would be great).

We did get a bit bogged down at those ruins, near that first fuel truck.

It's something that we need to manage: to keep the momentum going. (which is one of the principles or war... )

There can be a contact on one side where two squads are involved while nothing is happening with the other two squads.

This is where the squad leader can show some initiative while the PL Comd is busy and tell him there's nothing ahead so we're gonna advance to that next ridgeline or move to do some recon or get an overwatch position etc. And this includes the riflemen: you can show initiative and suggest to the squad leader we should move or clear an area etc. No need to be dumb grunts. After all it's not a dictatorship and the whole point of these missions is to discuss and suggest tactics, and not just before the mission but during too and get everyone involved.

Also, there is no problem when given a task (such as the example Zulu mentions) if faced with too many enemy to withdraw or disengage and say the task cant be completed, and you need more support or whatever. No need for suicide squads...

Zulu, how far did you's get playing that mission Rambo style?

But Zulu you are correct regarding maintaining the momentum, ensuring all squads are doing something. But I definately don't think planning was a problem slowing things down. We were pretty much reacting to situations as they happened. So it was more of a problem of momentum, and finding that balance between tactics and fun - and I think the three main solutions to that are:

1. Maintaining momentum.
2. Multi-tasking - all squads doing something.
3. Squad leaders and all players showing initiative

On that note, I suggest some of you guys step up and give squad  leader or PL commander slot a go. The usual guys do a great job, and it's only fair you guys give them a break and let them be a gun slinger for a while too. And I mean this for all missions we play on the CiA server, both WGL and FDF/BAS, not just the preplanned mission we play occasionally. You will be surprised at how much fun you can have in a leader role. And not having a mic is no excuse, the OFP commands and chat channel work fine - I've seen guys lead very well just using that.

Well done Hawke, did a great job takinig command, and Kurtz good work stepping up, too bad that you crashed. Also Gum as usual great squad leading, and you had some awesome accurate antiarmour shooters in your squad... T34 and Simmich I think! Those guys could have hit a 5c piece rolling left to right at 300m with an RPG with an ironsight.... ;D Good work Grip for being PL Comd as well!

Next time I think I'll take a gunslinger slot - had enough of running around giving out magazines to all you ammo hungry war dogs.... either that or learn some marksmanship!!!  

(12-28-2009, 01:56 PM)Simich link Wrote: [ -> ]Well, I want to thank everyone for this game, as first game on CiA server it was great, too bad BormaN have died too early, but gum did his job, as a fireteam(Javelin squad) leader very well, thanks.
I really enjoyed entourage you have created, I even felt like on a big airsoft game  
Thanks everyone, I hope future missions will be only more realistic and more exiting.

Glad to hear you had fun! You're welcome to join always.

Borman did you die or crash early?

Also forgot to mention our medic turning enemy - didn't know that could happen.... ;D ;D
Tony you working on those uniform ID's???
Seriously though, Lily I'm sure all the guys appreciate the great job you have been doing as medic, patching them up etc...

(12-30-2009, 05:22 PM)Marto link Wrote: [ -> ]Seriously though, Lily I'm sure all the guys appreciate the great job you have been doing as medic, patching them up etc...

Yea... i'm sure too, and i have even evidence for this!! 



Here Osku is showing his great thankful to medic (for not stopped his bleeding before) by....
aiming into medic's head from personal gun  ;D

Marto

Quote:Zulu, how far did you's get playing that mission Rambo style?

Actually about the same as gum and mikka. As part of the last few remaing alive we got to the evac point, then were attacked by Hinds and last group of infantry. Also scrambled around looking for launchers, but were killed just short of the end.  :'(

Way too many coop missions reward slow play IMO. Linoleum is a fine example of this. The AI just can't do effective counter-attacks, plan ambushes, do a proper static defense etc so it pays off to advance unrealistically carefully.

There's some things you can do in the mission to encourage or force faster action however, such as...

-have a hard time limit (mission ends), or soft (enemy gets crazy reinforcements after some time)
-reinforce the enemy constantly, little by little
-have a moving objective to protect
-have some friendly AI forces around that will help with the fight, but will fall quickly without the players' support (don't give them any AT for example)
-give the enemy some arty they will call on your position (see op melon on occasus for a simple trigger based example using CoC arty)
-have one player as the enemy general, coordinating AI groups on the map
-place dozens of AI groups on guard WPs

@Anguis

Quote:I would like AI in missions to react more aggressively than what we've seen in a few of these missions (in the first engagement in 'Death Harbor', I thought the AI should have been a lot more active - they were alerted, but remained, for the most part, passive). I have seen a mission where a small group of AI flanked our position on the right - more of this and more aggression would be welcome, with or without GL3 (though GL3 would be great).

I just looked at the AI skill level for Death Harbor and while some are set at .5 (50%) & 1.0 (100%), quite a few were at .333 and .200. So there is room for improvement right there.
There are many AI enhancement scripts that can be added to any mission. GroupLink II is the most popular, if detected information about the player side is shared with AI groups and they will all converge on your position. There are also hunter/killer scripts that cause a unit that activates a trigger to be endlessly hunted down, reinforcement scripts that cause stray units to joinup with other groups that have had losses, machinegun scripts that will keep heavy mg's manned if gunner is killed.
Pulverizer's idea about AI arty fire sounds interesting, it will certainly keep us on our toes.

(12-31-2009, 12:40 AM)Pulverizer link Wrote: [ -> ]Way too many coop missions reward slow play IMO. Linoleum is a fine example of this. The AI just can't do effective counter-attacks, plan ambushes, do a proper static defense etc so it pays off to advance unrealistically carefully.

There's some things you can do in the mission to encourage or force faster action however, such as...

-have a hard time limit (mission ends), or soft (enemy gets crazy reinforcements after some time)
-reinforce the enemy constantly, little by little
-have a moving objective to protect
-have some friendly AI forces around that will help with the fight, but will fall quickly without the players' support (don't give them any AT for example)
-give the enemy some arty they will call on your position (see op melon on occasus for a simple trigger based example using CoC arty)
-have one player as the enemy general, coordinating AI groups on the map
-place dozens of AI groups on guard WPs

Spot on Pulv.
Though I didn't play WGL much I have yet to play any WGL mission that gave any sense of urgency. But I bet we have such WGL missions that use these features on the server?

hmmmmmmm....hmmmmmmmmm
u guys want a faster pace in game....and u want to improve AI skills (which are already quite high in wgl compared to standards)........welll........i think improving AI skills would cause reducing the speed of the game even more....to stand a chance to survive..............paradox?

personally i think that the key stands in the rules that players have in these preorganized games, as some people have mentioned already.......try the leader's slot once and u'll probably don't have that "slow action" feeling any longer. radio communication with command and other group leaders will keep your head busy all time, and will definetely add realism to the game (because in the end wgl and these preorganized games are trying to keep the whole thing as realistic as it could be....).
so, beeing a simple rifleman in a squad could be kinda boring sometimes, especially in the dead times of a mission, but those who will feel bored should keep in mind that it's all part of the game.....and action will come again soon or later in the game, because action (fireing your rifle) is what we need to defeat the nme and get to debriefing. . what i try to do when i play as squad leader is to keep all my squad members informed on the orders that i recieve from command, and on what other squads are doing, to let them have a view of the global plan and action. i do so coz i think it can help non leader players to get more menthally involved in the hole battle thing.....and maybe make em feel less bored

obviously i speak as a person who likes the slow approach to missions, basicaly coz i like to play with all my mates alive in the mission.......which means we are all playing and not spectating......and having fun, i suppose.
i do agree that AI skills could be kinda improved sometimes, no matter if the pace gets even slower,
it's just even more challenging.....

HAPPY NEW YEAR FOLKS