Experience: CO of a mission with 4 infantry squads+IFV and MAT. JTAC with huge surplus of support. Patient advance and good and even overwhelming application of support fire eliminates most of enemy resistance. In the end the infantry squads just ran the map and the mission ended.
Conclusion: Mission tasks are easily completed with limited casualties and relatively relaxed for CO and leaders.
My Question: Is the CO also responsible for providing a "fun" experience for the guys? Should JTAC have been called off in order to leave more action at the end of the mission? Or even more extreme, should the CO consider "messing up" in order to make things more interesting, for example rushing in or letting the squads loose?
I think it can go either way and probably also lies in mission design but ive been thinking about it and thought to ask the forum.
Cheers,
Bryan
Need a Commander...
-
- Posts: 293
- Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2016 5:10 pm
- Contact:
Re: Need a Commander...
No.No.No.Bryan wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2017 2:47 pm My Question: Is the CO also responsible for providing a "fun" experience for the guys? Should JTAC have been called off in order to leave more action at the end of the mission? Or even more extreme, should the CO consider "messing up" in order to make things more interesting, for example rushing in or letting the squads loose?
The scenario you describe is a textbook application of how a combined effort is directed correctly. Afterall, the saying that artillery (supports) wins the battle and the infantry mops up still holds true. Now if that leaves the infantry (and with that the majority of players) with an uneventful experience it is no fault of the guy in charge if he, with the information available to him at the given point in time, made the right decisions to complete his objectives. Do not forget that force preservation is also usually an unwritten objective of most missions. Why spend men when you can spend ammunition first? I realise there are COs that prefer a slower paced approach and some that like to gamble more on high risk high reward tactics, yet this still holds true. There are usually one or more approaches to do a mission correctly and efficiently, meaning with the least amount of your own KIA. If you have to stray away from one of those ways after you have identified it in order to entertain your players, it is no fault of yours, it is poor design.
It is in fact only mission design that is responsible here. There are tons of ways to limit the effectiveness or ROE of supports in a mission. With a simple "Clear this village" mission, what keeps me from calling up my heavy mortars and just level the place? Nobody would even have to put their boots on for that. Yet, if I have to extract some hostages from that village and I do not know where they are, it would change my approach entirely. I would still be able to call mortars (or other supports) on contacts outside the village or to deny a QRF but the infantry would atleast have to get their feet wet once they enter the village. That way everyone gets to have some fun. Take this as an example, there are tons of ways to balance this out in other scenarios too. You can give your players all the support and equipment under the sun and still create a challenging mission for all. The key is that everybody has to have their moment, their job to complete the mission in conjunction with the others. A good start and rule of thumb is therefore to never make the AI the objective (i.e. "Clear this factory out"), yet make them the obstacle to overcome to complete an objective (i.e. "Destroy this guarded factory building"). That alone already adds some more depth and options to your mission. On the flipside, if a mission forces you into a stupid decision or a nonsensical approach it is either a bad mission or it is trying to have the players recreate a certain event which is rarely a good idea.
- Wombat
- Posts: 601
- Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 3:19 am
- Contact:
Re: Need a Commander...
It's an interesting conundrum. My short and simplistic answer is that the commander does indeed have some responsibility in making the mission "fun" for his subordinates.Bryan wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2017 2:47 pm My Question: Is the CO also responsible for providing a "fun" experience for the guys? Should JTAC have been called off in order to leave more action at the end of the mission? Or even more extreme, should the CO consider "messing up" in order to make things more interesting, for example rushing in or letting the squads loose?
However, I do think that the majority of our missions are closer to the "too hard" end of the scale than "too easy". Because of this, when I command, I generally side on the competitive approach of primarily focusing on completing the mission objectives with as few casualties as possible. I will often move my forces carefully and deliberately, and make full use of any supporting assets at my disposal.
Despite this, I'm not afraid to adapt my commanding approach to the mission if it's clear that some call-signs are receiving very little "action". When able, I will switch the call-sign's roles mid-mission so that every call-sign gets the opportunity to be both the rear guard and the tip of the spear.
At the end of the day, I believe it's more the responsibility of the mission developer to balance the mission so that it isn't too easy or too hard. The company/platoon commander should focus on getting the job done in the most efficient and least costly manner. If Delta rifle squad is having a very boring experience, then Delta squad-leader can to contact his CO via the usual channels to inform him of said issue and request the possibility of being re-tasked.
-
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 12:22 pm
- Location: Belgium
- Contact:
Re: Need a Commander...
No experience with taking CO on ArmA, so take this any way you like.Bryan wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2017 2:47 pm My Question: Is the CO also responsible for providing a "fun" experience for the guys? Should JTAC have been called off in order to leave more action at the end of the mission? Or even more extreme, should the CO consider "messing up" in order to make things more interesting, for example rushing in or letting the squads loose?
I think it can go either way and probably also lies in mission design but ive been thinking about it and thought to ask the forum.
- On a casual server, I'd say "mess up" or hold off here and there, so that everyone get's a piece of the action, even if it results in dozens of deaths.
- On a milsim-minded server, I'd rather opt for getting the job done with as few casualties as possible. In real life, if stand-off weapon platforms (aircraft, drones, artillery, armour, ...) are available and able to clean out an area without violating ROE, causing collateral damage and all that, they'll do it before the infantry enters.
That being said, ArmA is still a game you play to have a good time (I know, "define good time" ), so I do feel you may need to artificially keep it somewhat interesting sometimes.
E.g. during a recent Server 2 GN mission, our objective was to clear and destroy 2 co-located AA guns. I was JTAC and had access to (human) air support and AI mortars. Had CO asked me, I probably could've levelled the objective with 1 or 2 mortar strikes, maybe needing an air strike to follow up. Mission successful in less than 5 minutes, but zero fun for the infantry.
That didn't happen, the mission took well over an hour and we had quite a lot of casualties (most while fighting our way out), but there was a certain atmosphere throughout the whole mission. Overall, that resulted in fun + mission success, instead of just mission success.
-
- Posts: 343
- Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2016 11:31 am
- Location: Sagittarius A*
- Contact:
Re: Need a Commander...
I normally go with Murphy's Law in mind.
That normally ends with 'fuck it, it's only a game. Might as well have a fun five minutes of action than fifty five minutes of clearing empty hamlets'.
That normally ends with 'fuck it, it's only a game. Might as well have a fun five minutes of action than fifty five minutes of clearing empty hamlets'.
[3:33 PM] BOTMEE6: Hey @Cobra! Please don't use bad words!
[3:33 PM] BOTMEE6: Hey, sorry about this but... you got banned from Zeus by MEE6#4876 for 'Too many infractions..'
please do not swear on my christian youth server.
[3:33 PM] BOTMEE6: Hey, sorry about this but... you got banned from Zeus by MEE6#4876 for 'Too many infractions..'
please do not swear on my christian youth server.
- Folau
- Posts: 96
- Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 8:01 pm
- Location: UK
- Contact:
Re: Need a Commander...
I think there is a vague need for the command to try and spread the action around, but not force that if it's going to cause problems. Certainly they shouldn't deliberately make mistakes or similar to try and engineer excitement. It is the mission creator's job to set an appropriate challenge for both the players and the CO, and if it's one of my missions I'll be trying (within reason) to get you to make mistakes anyway
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests