TVT80 Toy Soldiers 14 February

[J.B.]

I will cut this out in wet cardboard: It is not the game mode (COOP/TVT) or mission type (attack/defend/air assault/fucking swimming in the ocean) that is the issue. Anyone claiming this is making a straw man and those who read it that being the issue doesn't understand what's been said so far.
To quote another person.
 

I don't think he is here at UO because of the people or the gameplay, he is here because we have the numbers and opportunity for him to *create* the gameplay he wants; in a nutshell, he is using UO to get what he wants and has no interest in the gameplay we, as a whole, have decided we want.

That is the issue which has become clear as a result of his exact own words on the server when the mission was being played and his posts in this thread.

Edited February 15, 2015 by J.B.

[Herbiie]

I liked this mission. Sides were balanced for the most part. In real war you don't always know where the enemy is and sometimes you walk into each other.

 

No but you also don't always react by trying to destroy the enemy force. As Godhand said several times, the 2 realistic options open to a commander are:

1) Form a defensive position and request support.

or

2) Break contact, withdraw, and request support.

 

Continuing an attack in such circumstances would be pretty dumb. So if this mission were to continue realistically, both sides would move forward, take contact, find the enemy force to be much larger than one they can deal with (bear in mind the 3:1 ratio), and then withdraw. Not a particularly fun mission for anyone, no matter what you want out of UO.

[Fred_the_Destroyer]

I think everyone missed my last post. Don't blow this out of proportion, it's just a discussion of the mission, I advise you read my last post, it will explain a lot.

[Herbiie]

No Fred the problems is still there, as you are ignoring the main point of people's issues with the mission (i.e. it's entire concept is flawed). If you want to ignore them, then fine, but it does not count as addressing their problems.

[Fred_the_Destroyer]

The briefing states the enemy is the same size as you.

But, since walking into each other does indeed sometimes happen, what you'd then do is assess the enemy strength, and if you figure you don't have a  great enough advantage, you fall back and request reinforcements and/or artillery fire.

 

The briefing states the enemy is of similar COMPOSITION to you. The mission is supposed to be played at full Numbers, which means both sides are supposed to think they have the numerical advantage.

 

No Fred the problems is still there, as you are ignoring the main point of people's issues with the mission (i.e. it's entire concept is flawed). If you want to ignore them, then fine, but it does not count as addressing their problems.

 

Guy, you are speaking with a log in both eyes. Nobody is bitching about "Russian Infantry Air Assault onto AAA/AA position" is that concept not flawed as well?

 

The concept of many coop missions I have seen is: American Platoon+ Assault Russian Company- with negligable support OR American Company- Assault Russian Infantry squad with a shitload of support. These concepts are not only ridiculous, they are downright boring as shit to play for the majority of people on the server, who run around doing nothing for most of the mission.

 

I simply made a mission where every gets some gun-time in a somewhat out of the ordinary scenario, one that is still viable, but out of the ordinary none-the-less.

 

Herbiie, 33% casualties is just not playable, it ends the mission too early and for my first few missions that was a major complaint as I tried to make the casualty limit somewhat realistic based on the scenario.

 

There is room on the server for something simple like this, there are already plenty of Company- Assault Fireteam+ missions on the server and they will be played as well. Stop trying to twist the charter to outlaw missions that have the same right to exist as all others.

[Herbiie]

Guy, you are speaking with a log in both eyes. Nobody is bitching about "Russian Infantry Air Assault onto AAA/AA position" is that concept not flawed as well?

 

The concept of many coop missions I have seen is: American Platoon+ Assault Russian Company- with negligable support OR American Company- Assault Russian Infantry squad with a shitload of support. These concepts are not only ridiculous, they are downright boring as shit to play for the majority of people on the server, who run around doing nothing for most of the mission.

 

I simply made a mission where every gets some gun-time in a somewhat out of the ordinary scenario, one that is still viable, but out of the ordinary none-the-less.

 

Herbiie, 33% casualties is just not playable, it ends the mission too early and for my first few missions that was a major complaint as I tried to make the casualty limit somewhat realistic based on the scenario.

 

There is room on the server for something simple like this, there are already plenty of Company- Assault Fireteam+ missions on the server and they will be played as well. Stop trying to twist the charter to outlaw missions that have the same right to exist as all others.

 

None of this negates the fact that people had a problem with it that you are not addressing, whether you ignore it or not is up to you, as I said.

 

I disagree with you, but honestly don't give a crap what you do with your missions, I just won't play them.

[Fred_the_Destroyer]

I disagree with you, but honestly don't give a crap what you do with your missions, I just won't play them.

 

That is a personal choice, you are free to do that, just as I have been free to skip every mission you have made, because I feel they are a waste of my time and patience. This does not mean your missions have no right to exist, it is simply a personal dislike of long bird-watching sessions that drives me away from them.

[VKing]

The briefing states the enemy is of similar COMPOSITION to you. The mission is supposed to be played at full Numbers, which means both sides are supposed to think they have the numerical advantage.

 

I quote the briefing:

Hostile Force is very similar (exactly) to our force in equipment and capability.

Claiming it's metagaming to know exactly what the enemy has in a TVT doesn't work when the briefing tells you that the enemy is, in fact, identical to your own force.

[Rich]

Is it even possible to ignore the slot screen metagame?  If the briefing tells you one thing, but you know for a fact that the circumstances are difference because you just saw all of the slots, is it possible to play as if you don't have that slot knowledge?  Is it possible as the commander to not plan your mission around that meta?

[Impulse 9]

If you put as much effort into the briefing as you have in defending and ignoring the suggestions in this thread, I feel the mission may have a chance at remaining on the server.

 

It is very apparent that you have a much deeper insight to this mission, how it will be played, and what is intended that players should know.

You have posted more than enough, with far more reasoning than is conveyed by the single line entries in the briefing itself.

You need to convey this reasoning in the mission so that the players will understand this.

 

At present the briefing reads as follows

 

Team A - Go to Hill A

Team B - Go to Hill B

 

If either team takes 70% casualties, they lose.

If the time runs out you lose.

 

 

Give the mission a bit more effort and reason for it to be taken seriously. It will do wonders for giving the players a bit for focus and reasoning behind the effort you have put forward on this mission.

[Fred_the_Destroyer]

 

I quote the briefing:

Claiming it's metagaming to know exactly what the enemy has in a TVT doesn't work when the briefing tells you that the enemy is, in fact, identical to your own force.

What tab is that under Vking? That is right. The composition tab.

[VKing]

What tab is that under Vking? That is right. The composition tab.

And? If the enemy is of the same type, has the same composition, and the same capabilities, how are they not identical?

[Herbiie]

VKing, I would not bother arguing with him. He has his mind set and is too stubborn to change anything that might mean he was wrong.

[Wade]

 

Why the hell would you recon a base 50 miles away? What? Your post doesn't make any sense.

An example, obviously not micro managing the way he wants to do it. But if you want to know why you would recon a base, you might want to recon a base to see what kind of supplies and vehicles they have, and to know who or what leaves the base. They could also recon for an assault on the base.

[VKing]

I reiterate: Your post doesn't make any sense.

How is what you're writing relevant to the point at hand?

[Wade]

I reiterate: Your post doesn't make any sense.

How is what you're writing relevant to the point at hand?

You were hinting that meeting engagements are bad and they affect the community because it doesn't have a background to why there's an engagement. I claimed that you were attempting to say every mission should have a full realism background or the mission shouldn't be allowed.

Edited February 16, 2015 by Wade

[VKing]

How did you possibly read that from what I said?

Nowhere in my post did I mention a "backstory" or lack thereof. I mentioned a lack of relevant objectives.

Please stop reading things into my posts and claiming that I say and mean things I haven't.

[Wade]

How did you possibly read that from what I said?

Nowhere in my post did I mention a "backstory" or lack thereof. I mentioned a lack of relevant objectives.

Please stop reading things into my posts and claiming that I say and mean things I haven't.

Apologizes. I misinterpreted what you were stating in your post. To me it sounded like you wanted every mission to have a realistic background on why we are doing what we are doing.

Edited February 16, 2015 by Wade

[Bob]

Am I the only one who likes to play a 'simple' mission like this between all the 'more serious 1+-hour briefing missions'  ?

Edited February 16, 2015 by Bob

[Herbiie]

Am I the only one who likes to play a 'simple' mission like this between all the 'more serious 1+-hour briefing missions'  ?

 

How many missions have you played with 1 hour briefings?

 

If simple means a mission without real objectives giving little opportunity for tactical simulation then you may not be the only one but it's damn sure not what UO is meant to be about.

[HellHound]

Full Disclosure, I haven't played or seen this mission. That said, my points are applicable even with this point.

 

You can have a simple mission with real objectives, without a backstory. Simply assume two forces are in conflict because reasons and the players will go with it (the exception being two sides who look nearly identical because friendly fire).

 

Then prepare a mission briefing at the COMPANY (or up one level from the players force). This doesn't need to include Divisions higher intent, if you want a bit of metagame hint at BN COs intent. You can then pick a piece of terrain to attack/defend/recon/raid for whatever reason you want. Lump in something about in support of a fictional platoons main effort and you've satisfied the "realistic concept" crowd. I know this because I'm in that crowd. You can get some wacky ideas but the concepts are still pretty straightforward no matter what.

 

I think you get all that for the most part. I think there's still some refinement to be done as with any mission maker. The issue is it seems like you don't want to listen to, at all, some of the people who have been there and done that in real life. Their points are fundamentally correct in terms of how and what should be done. If you want a different result from something that is REALISTIC then you need to reshape the mission to accommodate the ideals of the charter, or save the mission for a different community. Most of us here, myself included, find the "pinned by BMPs with a single launcher" scenario as more fun than a slug fest in a forest.

 

Just consider the points presented by everyone here. There's a lot of personalities here, many more blunt than others, but everyone has contributed apart from Wade.