Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 


United Operations - A Tactical Gaming Community

ArmA 3 Mission List

ArmA 2 Mission List




Everything posted by Gamerofthegame

  1. It's a really bad game. Also, the lead developer last I knew kinda randomly went "I WANNA FARM NOW" and that takes up most of his time.
  2. So Mastec, if you're going to randomly stop coming around and stop the game could you at least post something? Be nice.
  3. In which the game largely shits on Britain and Portugual via various means and Ham hacks the game to make even more bad things to happen to Britain. (Seriously what the fuck, game.) Only about ten years occurred due to various technical difficulties so there isn't much of a AAR this time around.
  4. I certainly wouldn't mind. For those interested, Spain, France and England are all the "strong juggernaut" countries. If England is taken I would recommend Scotland is, too, to keep England from just going full strength immediately. France has Burgandy/The Dutch while Castile has no real "playable" rivals. (You want to keep Portugual around, Aragon basically falls in your lap and Morroco is barely a threat.) Beyond the big three, the fatter HRE nations like Bohemia are strong choices, but will have a tough time unless they border the empire so they can expand. (There are severe aggression penalties for gobbling up your in-empire neighbors.) Italy is interesting, but the Venice trade node is a early game trap and they're easily bullied by the HRE and Austria in particular. Eastern Europe, though, becomes a crapshot when it comes to multiplayer. Prussia, Poland and Lithuania can all possibly become gods... Or... Not. Mosvoy is a fair bet, but without the ability to save scum you have to be very careful about the hordes in the early game. Beyond that, the Ottomans, Mamluks, Japan and Manchu are all solid choices, especially for multiplayer. From experience, I would recommend someone takes Sweden and the Ottomans, which will keep things relatively balanced for multiplayer. A successful Sweden is terrifying to both England and Russia, one of the few nations that can (and should) rival them. AI Scandavia tends to become a mess. The Ottomans are, on the flipside, keep late-game Russia and the whole of the Mediterranean in check, while also providing religion tension for the early, crusade game. Neither one of them will keep France and Spain from getting crazy, but those two also keep themselves in check. Hopefully by the 23rd the more bothersome bugs are patched out, too.
  5. Save that is much, much worse, as that is even more nebulous to the point of individual interpretation, which is among the reasons of the 'No' votes thus far. In this run it has it be defined by the KSAs - Which... Aren't made yet and we can only infer by another guide that would be similar. Still pretty nebulous, but with a solid, if easily changed document to go by. I don't think this will change much. Well, no, I know it won't. However, if people think that it will and they join the server, ho hey, the "quality bar" suddenly sky rockets because people who know what they are doing are also actively working to act they way they want. My primary reservations are the wording and in general vagueness. I also just don't think the "punishment" is very newbie friendly, nor all that required. Maybe I have gotten lucky and only just played with people who know these proposed basics already and carry them out for the past month.
  6. ... Uh. I will admit that I wasn't there, but it sounds like he was talking about and not bad mouthing ethnicities.
  7. Ah yes of course, we'll punish people for not knowing every minute detail of ACE, which has practically no readme to speak of and some of it is still heresy, as well as other slot functions that they have no practical way of learning outside of trail by fire and Domi-like missions. (Which come up rarely) Can't divine how to use the Javelin, which seems to bug out half the time anyway? You're not coming back until you take a Jav course! ... Which is why this sort of thing is about the basics and not something so dramatic, but still. I can't commend to much on ShackTac, but I do get that. That said; this is a bit nebulious on the whole banning thing. Let's say Joe Newbie comes in, reads up on things but gets a little hazy on the details from the word salad because, you know, it's for a video game. He messes up a bit but troddles along, like most new people do already. If he messes up to much he gets a warning. He reads up on it, adjusts. He messes up again but for a different reason - I dunno, let's go with the "helpful" not-medic example you said. Now, as per ruling Joe Newbie, all confused and frazzled as shit goes down, ought to be banned! Obviously this isn't likely to happen, but as per the ruling and flow chart it ought to. And again, that brings into question how robust the document that people need to know is. If it's super simplistic then yeah, people are going to trip over the details but there will be a minor bar for things, at least. If it's more complicated I think it will hurt confused newbies from trigger happy, "The old days were better!" people far more then it helps. (And, by the way, they really weren't.) I don't think it will be that bad in practice, but it could be. And there is nothing really stopping it from being. And that's bad! Especially when it can be changed pretty much any time the UOTC officers feel like it, for more or less. To many things up in the air.
  8. Color me a bit confused. What exactly are you proposing here as a "barrier"? You're referencing these KSAs and a self-policing qualification, but don't really go into much other detail. Do you intend to simply have a rule in which players are expected to know various details and such ahead of time before joining the server and failing to know them after being prompted by someone or it coming up gets them kicked off? That already exists to a extent in the "Incompetence" ban option, though that's a bit more of a glaring fault. (That said, however, if it's not exactly a glaring fault then that implies the person is at least trying and just confused.) I don't see how anything will really change with this set up. New players will still be absolutely bombarded by information from UO-specific things, ACRE, ACE and general Arma shenanigans. Now instead of someone taking maybe a minute to answer any questions someone might be confused about, such as advanced radios or whatever have you, while in one of the many downtime periods between missions (Such as walking or waiting) you have a clause to kick that confused person off the server instead. Yeah, that'll teach 'em. Don't come back, you! Don't even know what a peel is. god. I am honestly just seeing the negatives here. You're not really going to push people to learn any more then they already would. All you're doing is giving GMs a kick button if someone doesn't necessarily know all their stuff. My jaded imagination sees this even be used as a attack on some people if someone else simply doesn't like the way people play. Even among our high speed regulars that "standard" varies, be it due to just personal preference, nationality or what have you. Now, that said, I don't think your proposed KSAs would go that high up the "competency" ladder, but none the less. Your proposed standards would have to be extremely well written, informative and concise. Telling would-be players they have to go through and memorize a fat manual before they can even get the chance to try the server isn't exactly going to go over to well! The person who heralded the vote should have waited until their proposed KSAs were actually made up. This is far to nebulous otherwise. Buuuut I don't get much of a say in this matter.
  9. With no maps, radios or compasses I would recommend that you adopt the floaty tag system so people can see what squad is what.at a glance instead of having to vaguely memorize it as the mission progresses. In our recent play through we had to have people run around into blobs to yell for people while trying to find them at a glance, which is a bit annoying. Humvees and a much heavier spoiler are hella rude. Humvees seem to have quite a bit of accuracy and the spoiler is pretty resilient.
  10. The most important metric to me of a regular position, beyond what it "means" and so on and so forth, is the powers they get. In this case they get the Regular powers to kick (and briefly ban, but less important) people from in game and Teamspeak. Now, neither of these things are really all that, but all the same. I don't think I would be comfortable with Gabe having even such simple on demand powers based on a variety of my own personal experiences with him - He is emotionally high strung and prone to aggressive, kneejerk reactions. He's a good guy all around otherwise, but his flaw is particularly grating for this sort of position. Heck, if it weren't for this then I wouldn't find it hard to believe if you managed to get a position like GM far down the road! However, as it is I honestly don't think you'll be able to shake that negative reputation for some time even if you do improve. Which you haven't, yet, besides.
  11. This is true. My boss made no mention of friendlies being anywhere near by but quite far behind us and it was otherwise a bunker in the still enemy controlled era that we drove past to set up and clear. Communication went downhill, I could have taken a half second to PID but in my defense we had gotten jumped by enemies suddenly in our face twice thus far that mission and I had no expectations of the contrary. Sorry, boss.
  12. Needs work. As of v1.1 I would recommend anyone who potentially plays it to bump the ratio in favor of Civfor severely. Like, one squad of Indie, period.
  13. Okay. You probably were a little too much for your first mission, but. Tanks tend to get knocked out via crew killing, not actual destruction. This makes it actually rather hard to tell when you have lost your other tanks! Putting them all together in the same squad would mitigate this minor issue. JIPs also have no practical way of getting to their various units. Please add a teleport-to-vehicle feature instead of a transport one, as a all ground mission doesn't really work with it unless it's a very short distance. It seems the AI was firing out of the tanks viewing range, which is Bad. Additionally, the oppressive viewing range meant Avengers couldn't actually find their alleged targets. Avengers don't have radars either, so they have to right-click spam in some attempt to find anything. Which is annoying and doesn't work well whatsoever. More importantly, however, attacking Sirus and Sol (But leaving the third due to waiting room and casualties) the Avengers and entire friendly force saw a Hind. And nothing else. There were no other enemy air contacts. Beyond that, please add 148s to the gear of all the vehicles. Avengers can be easily one manned, for instance, but if only the gunner slots in then they don't get radios to speak of. Any casualities also cause radio comms to immediately go south. It needs work. A lot of work, but work.
  14. Well, if you are after making brand new content then I suppose a F-16/Eurofighter that is Ace compatible (You're the worst, modding community.) would get a fair amount of use. A-10s are fat and kind of a little too strong and Harriers tend to be out of place. Beyond that... Eh. We don't use much of our modpack as is. I haven't played a Isreali or a Egyptian mission in a while, while most people only sparingly things from the German pack. Hell, even on a base equipment thing we kind of vary around a lot - The Jackal is the only British vehicle I have seen, for instance, to memory. I think I have seen a M60 in one mission in all of UO, and even that is the silly/amazing engineering one. I know I would enjoy more "enemy" nations that actually matter, but that too isn't really going to be a thing. Most of the go-tos use Soviet-bloc vehicles, so that's already handled. France is a possibility, I guess, but that's a massive undertaking for a game we'll likely be shifting away from not too long from now. Eh.
  15. I would honestly recommend downsizing things a bit - Turning the small unmangable horde of Little Birds into Blackhawks and Apaches would be a grand total of six birds in total over ten+, but I suppose it's based off something. ... Also this was done in the day, not the night.
  16. How's that unfair, though? Especially in this case it gives people something solid to be based off instead of a extremely vague distance, especially considering: A.) It's a video game and thus all sense of scale and the likes are right out the window B.) Not everyone knows meters, anyway! US is lame like that. It gives you a easy precision and, apparently, you already know just about what that distance is otherwise. It's a general acknowledgement that everyone has it, you (And others) are the blacksheep out - You can certainly ask about it and bring it up, but being... Eh, offended is to strong for it, but none the less, over it seems silly and trite. Personally, the HUD solves so many issues with the nature of our hourily gameplay - knowing who your people are, etc, as well as some basic situational awareness issues that wouldn't come up in reality. I much prefer the era of Shack other before, especially in missions without radios where, yeah, you might suddenly lose your squad and not notice it for a few seconds, let alone difficulty of knowing who people are etc etc. I understand the concept of thinking that it's cheating or dumbing things down for some, but personally I think, from time with and without, the pros outweight the cons by a solid margin. It greatly supports and aides in tactical gameplay, which is a fundamental importance here. Organization, yo.
  17. That's... Way to many. More then one attack chopper starts to severely overshadow every other asset on the field, even with the enemy having the odd stinger.
  18. I would recommend doing a non-traditional vote on what nation to play as, instead of just throwing up suggestions. Ye US branches, British, Germany, Russia, whatev'. If you do put up a vote, put a WIP set up for each nation, too; while the Brits have fantastic modern weapon models, they have kinda shit vehicles and everything else. Assuming we're talking Claf here, vehicles are a mixed bag. The wonderful Valley area they can be used to good effect, though thermals start to pale out quickly in the rather thick tree lines surrounding the area. Outside of the valley, though, they become worthless very quickly - and I am not talking entirely ground vehicles, here. The thick tree cover made a Cobra on old MSO practically blind to a "entire company" advancing on a locked downsquad's eastern front, much to their distress. Anything with wheels just has a hard time getting around - It took twenty minutes to get from the base in the valley to the airfield in the SE corner, one way, in Styrkers, which are relatively speedy, low-risk invicible vehicles. Shits a pain. That said, as what ended up amounting to the platoon sergent for the Stykers in previous MSO, I relatively enjoyed it even if it could be greatly improved and not having those vehicles availble would be pretty painful for the boot squads. (Stykers in particular are actually really good for MSO, as you can one man them easily and, thus, don't actually need your whole retinue. Something like a Bradley, for example, would be terrible.) Even in the previous MSO boots were feeling the burn whenever the two vehicle groups weren't staffed, effectively not being able to do anything. Now. Mortars were used twice in all of MSO, to memory. In one case when the base was being sieged and the mortar was literally right there, while the paladins were outside. Another time was in a operation in the mountains, but to memory one of the operators had to go and the weapon couldn't get used. Fat lot of good that was. Artillery was used semi-frequently, but it's a role that barely gets a lot of use whatsoever and could probably be cut in lieu of bomb-having aircraft without a sad face around: A plane needs one player, artillery needs two to be properly effective and those two players are probably going to be twiddling their thumbs save for two or three times a day, if that. So. My suggestions; I would recommend removing the heavy artilery, through mortars could stay and be tooled into weapons if people really want arty for operations. I would recommend keeping the vehicle retinue, in particular the Stykers - Fun to drive, fun (the lack of nightvision aside) to gun and extremely forgiving in the treacherous Claf terrain. Plus you can lift them via Chinook! I would recommend keeping air assets fairly fat - while the runway is, in my opinion, the worst thing, fixed and rotary wing still got a lot of use. Two fixed wing, a rotary attack chopper and oodles of transports for all sorts of needs, depending on the nation. In addition to that, infantry need a method of getting their own transport. Last MSO was god awful for it, with the only method of transport being either on your feet, squad-sized trucks, choppers or the strykers. You didn't always have your full squad, after all - unarmed humvees alone would be nice, or whatever nation-alternative. Restricting people from being able to get around freely is not the point of things, that just means people can't do things.
  19. I too think it'd be a good and fun idea to put all my gametime in the hands of other players, as well as punish anyone who did anything without higher command on the server and got messed over. Small squad doing patrols in a humvee on low pop? Sure, go ahead! Save you got hit by one insurgent hanging out in a off-the-road town and will likely never be found until you make a forum post. While it's a interesting idea in theory, it would be horrible for gameplay.
  20. oh mai gawd buy scribblenauts you terrible people
  21. If this does go to Claf' with the same general armament as before (Styrkers, namely) please add-script in nightvision for the gunner, or the unison thermal/NV from some newer US vehicles. As a gunner on MSO you basically wanted to kill yourself in any night operation, as thermals didn't work period through the flora and you couldn't see jack. The driver has both while the gunner does not. It's infuriating. And bad.
  22. Someone bothered me from afar and the hoops they went through to do it meritted me to wander by. Nou has a habit of attacking people and conspiring in skype and other unofficial used chat programs with members of the community. For example, and the only example I have as someone actually copy and pasta'd the transcript to send it to me; (Context; my second and successful removal thread) (Person said this went on for a bit and he was quiet serious, but this was the only part sent to me.) Nou also has a habit of outright lying to others over things, as a part of the previous mentioned conspiring, to get his way. I do not have any recorded proof of this, however, so you'll have to take that as hearsay. Now. Don't call me back, you.
  23. My god. It's very simple. This is what you do, it's not that difficult. The GM announces over global whenever they do something, such as repairing a smashed vehicle or so on or whatever. If the GM wishes to fill a... DM role and mess with the mission itself, then they ask the mission leader(s) in the slotting or briefing screen. Their consent also (Vaguely) implies the server's consent, and I am pretty sure the GM can tell if the server doesn't like the idea without putting up some half-assed in game poll. I trust them with that, anyway. With consent, the GM may do whatever they wish. Now. Mission makers might get upset that their mission is being changed... But... Why? If the GM is very forthcoming in the fact that they are acting in a "DM" role and changing things, then people won't (likely) complain about the mission or think of whatever happens as part of that. For instance, play some WAC and the GM spawns 10 tanks for the sake of example. "Well golly this mission sucks." "No, the GM was fucking with it." "Oh! Okay." Or whatever. Things can be explained after things are over, anyway. This is all about the enjoyment of the players on the server. If a GM wants to and consent is given, he should be allowed to enrich the players' experience. Many missions are played the exact same way over and over, with the exact same threats. For a possibly outdated example if you have done something terrible; Executive outcomes! Usually a easy mission. But what if the GM changed things? Now the villages are not manned by militia/insurgents, but army forces. The mission is played in a new light and is a new, different experience.
  • Create New...