12-16-2016, 06:15 PM
(12-16-2016, 03:48 PM)Alwarren Wrote:I think McGregor clearly and articulately explained why he chose not to include GPS in this mission, so saying that he had no other reason other from "out of spite", is completely uncalled for, I don't see any reason why would you write something like that, using quotes or not.(12-16-2016, 03:20 PM)McGregor Wrote: I really don't see the need for GPS in this one
That is my point. I don't see how a GPS for the team leader would make it any worse. The only reason you did not include them is "out of spite", so to speak. You don't have any other reason.
(12-16-2016, 03:48 PM)Alwarren Wrote: The mission is not about orientation.Clearly, the author disagrees. And I too - Most of the missions involve identifying your position in order to identify the enemy position and orient towards to kill it. This mission was about navigation as any.
(12-16-2016, 03:48 PM)Alwarren Wrote: The only thing you create with not giving a GPS is confusionConfusion which was welcomed. I've found confusion as a big advantage to that mission. The fact we had trouble locating the target compounds ADDED to my experience, and definitely not detracted from it. Since that's what McGregor aimed to achieve, it means that he succeeded.
(12-16-2016, 03:59 PM)Varanon Wrote: Secondly, "bug with foggin"... even without the fog (I've checked), the plain is featureless.An area with three(!) mapped compounds cannot be called featureless. In addition, the hillock to our front left was marked on the map and was identifiable as well.
(12-16-2016, 03:59 PM)Varanon Wrote: Yeah, there is a mountain in some distance, but that will not help you find the correct compound in this case, it will allow you to find an approximate position, which I already knew. So, looking at the compass, I found a compound that looked pretty much like the one on the map.And that resulted in a chaotic knife-fight that was poisoned by our indecision whether we are attacking the correct compound. That was great!
(12-16-2016, 03:59 PM)Varanon Wrote: Just that it wasn't. It had the exact same layout, it had the exact same shape with an encircling wall. It was just the wrong one.I feel like you are trying to illustrate this as there was no chance in hell to find the correct compound under the terrain features in that mission. That's simply not true. And in any case, adding a GPS just so we will never make a navigational mistake is clearly the wrong conclusion from last night's game, even if navigation was hard.
(12-16-2016, 03:59 PM)Varanon Wrote: So, in essence, the question I asked myself yesterday after we played this, was "why didn't I get a GPS", and the only reasonable answer I cam up with was "to make it more difficult". It didn't make it more enjoyable, just more frustrating. Leading is frustrating enough, especially when the other team leader is also falling for the same problem as I did (Phantom ended up on the completely wrong side as well, he probably did not have any clue where he was).I wish to remind us all that we are talking about a mission that we completed despite the difficulties in navigation and the fierce enemy resistance. In my book, a difficult mission that is beatable, in a good one. And the more it's hard to beat it, yet possible, the better.
So we had difficulties that added to the challenge, that's great. We play many missions that we try to beat time and time again. Are they better just because we play units that have equipment that they "suppose" to have? I believe the answer is no.
(12-16-2016, 03:59 PM)Varanon Wrote: If I know that the typical range of engagement is 300 to 500 m, you will have RCO's. Why ? Because if you have engagements at 500 m, you will need them, or you are useless, and nothing is more frustrating during a game than feeling useless.The ability to convey the feeling of uselessness or hopelessness is one of the great abilities of the Arma series. Making good use of that feeling often leads to wonderful experiences. I don't want to have all the equipment "I need". Actually, the more thrilling scenarios are scenarios that let the player feel the lack of sufficient resources. Does that mean that every such mission has to be played as guerrillas to convey that feeling? No. Does that meant that every single mission that has you play an under-equipped specops soldier has to be justified by adding a line to the briefing that says "you ran out of batteries to your NVGs that's why you don't have them" in order for the lack of equipment to make sense? Definitely not.
The fewer men, the greater share of honor