Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Geth

What Makes a Good TVT?

Recommended Posts

I disagree. Higher casualties means more people are dead and not having fun while the mission is still going.

 

Dying means you got shot, that means you were getting shot at, that means you were in combat. Being in combat is fun. On other hand missions where you don't get to fire at enemy are not really fun.

 

It's all about finding that right balance.

 

As to COTVTs: players from opposing team could be forced to stay in one small, or split into few smaller (around 100 meters in diameter), randomized AOs. That would prevent them from executing super flanks, ramboing or stalking players, while encourage them to defend objective.

Share this post


Link to post

Dying means you got shot, that means you were getting shot at, that means you were in combat. Being in combat is fun. On other hand missions where you don't get to fire at enemy are not really fun.

 

That's not what the argument was.

The argument was that missions where more casualties are needed before the mission ends are more fun, but they won't be for the dead people.

 

A mission can be intensive, which is what you're talking about, without having a massive casualty limit. A random meeting engagement TVT without a tightly defined mission area will not be intensive no matter how many casualties you can take before the mission ends.

Share this post


Link to post

Dying means you got shot, that means you were getting shot at, that means you were in combat. Being in combat is fun. On other hand missions where you don't get to fire at enemy are not really fun.

 

It's all about finding that right balance.

 

As to COTVTs: players from opposing team could be forced to stay in one small, or split into few smaller (around 100 meters in diameter), randomized AOs. That would prevent them from executing super flanks, ramboing or stalking players, while encourage them to defend objective.

Personally, I would love missions where you don't have to fire a shot.... I haven't fired a shot in many missions and I am quite happy with it as long as it is realistic and teamwork/tactics are used properly. 

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, for example by having checkpoints they need to pass or having a random route selected via script that they are required to take (roadblocks, cp, etc).

The fun would be that you don't know when and where the ambush happens, making the mission much more dynamic. Maybe different types of tasking like freeing prisoners that are transported, stealing a certain object/intel or maybe even taking hostages. I think there are lots of possible concepts, and I'd rather spend time training people to play those missions properly instead of just saying "we can't do this" and playing the same simple missions over and over again.

 

If one side knows the exact strength and area that the enemy are operating in, things that are inherent with a tvt, then it is really not an ambush. Unless that side deliberately bumbles around (which would violate SOPs that require a tactical and coherent plan) they are going to expect imminent contact with an enemy force and plan accordingly.

 

If you force one side down a specific road that removes any vestiges of it being an ambush scenario. You then know the enemy are going to be present and attack on the specific road, and the scenario changes from anti ambush to route clearance.

 

Outside of quick snap ambushes you really cannot do any kind of ambush scenario, particularly a set ambush, because when every mission starts with “there are 20 men with AK pattern rifles and 4 RPGs, operating in these grid squares, who are going to try and attack us,” it throws any surprise out of the window.

 

Set ambushes only really work in a coop scenario, where, while you can't the ai to be truly “surprised,” you can simulate it by have them be in a low state of readiness and generally less reactive.

 

As to COTVTs: players from opposing team could be forced to stay in one small, or split into few smaller (around 100 meters in diameter), randomized AOs. That would prevent them from executing super flanks, ramboing or stalking players, while encourage them to defend objective.

 

 

That's an utterly fucking terrible idea. If, for example, a platoon of mech infantry is barrelling down on your sections position, you are going to want to withdraw, because it is the sensible thing to do. Not sit in a hole and die. Unless your desire is to simulate WW2 Japanese holdouts, this removes any attempt to have a realistic defence because no one can move.

Share this post


Link to post

[...]

 

[...]because when every mission starts with “there are 20 men with AK pattern rifles and 4 RPGs, operating in these grid squares, who are going to try and attack us,” it throws any surprise out of the window.

 

[...]

 

Exactly! What I am trying to say is that you have to cut down on information to make things happen unexpectedly; maybe by making spawn-points more random [via script] and having slight variations in tasking. You don't have to draw a 100m by 100m red square on the map labeled "ENEMY WILL AMBUSH HERE". The mission-briefing also doesn't have to state the enemy commanders intent or strength, the mission could be designed in a way where an ambush is not the only option, this way it leaves all possibilities open and whatever happens might be by surprise. I think it's already a good step forward if TIME and LOCATION of the contact are not preset/known, which means not stated in the mission-briefing.

This is not Battlefield and therefor missions don't need to be perfectly balanced or even fair. Personally I wouldn't mind playing as a force that is in disadvantage, as long as it is approached in a realistic and tactical manner.

 

 I am not a mission-maker, but I am sure you guys can come up with more precise and realistic ideas. I am just brain-storming basically. The TVTs I have played so far are all good, but it's mostly been red squares on the map saying "ATTACK/DEFEND HERE", you always know where the enemy is, where he is hiding and when contact is starting.

Share this post


Link to post

Exactly! What I am trying to say is that you have to cut down on information to make things happen unexpectedly; maybe by making spawn-points more random [via script] and having slight variations in tasking. You don't have to draw a 100m by 100m red square on the map labeled "ENEMY WILL AMBUSH HERE". The mission-briefing also doesn't have to state the enemy commanders intent or strength, the mission could be designed in a way where an ambush is not the only option, this way it leaves all possibilities open and whatever happens might be by surprise. I think it's already a good step forward if TIME and LOCATION of the contact are not preset/known, which means not stated in the mission-briefing.

This is not Battlefield and therefor missions don't need to be perfectly balanced or even fair. Personally I wouldn't mind playing as a force that is in disadvantage, as long as it is approached in a realistic and tactical manner.

 

 I am not a mission-maker, but I am sure you guys can come up with more precise and realistic ideas. I am just brain-storming basically. The TVTs I have played so far are all good, but it's mostly been red squares on the map saying "ATTACK/DEFEND HERE", you always know where the enemy is, where he is hiding and when contact is starting.

What goes in the briefing is irrelevant to the fact that every commander knows exactly the composition of the enemy force, because of the slot screen. Nor can you remove that without making slotting a nightmare, people need to know what roles they are slotting into.

 

You also can't remove the fact that even if you set the mission on the largest map with no AO limitation, the CO still knows going into the mission that there is an enemy force in the area, which is looking to attack him. Anyone with any nouse about them will therefore take measures to avoid being ambushed.

Share this post


Link to post

Exactly! What I am trying to say is that you have to cut down on information to make things happen unexpectedly; maybe by making spawn-points more random [via script] and having slight variations in tasking. You don't have to draw a 100m by 100m red square on the map labeled "ENEMY WILL AMBUSH HERE". The mission-briefing also doesn't have to state the enemy commanders intent or strength, the mission could be designed in a way where an ambush is not the only option, this way it leaves all possibilities open and whatever happens might be by surprise. I think it's already a good step forward if TIME and LOCATION of the contact are not preset/known, which means not stated in the mission-briefing.

This is not Battlefield and therefor missions don't need to be perfectly balanced or even fair. Personally I wouldn't mind playing as a force that is in disadvantage, as long as it is approached in a realistic and tactical manner.

 

 I am not a mission-maker, but I am sure you guys can come up with more precise and realistic ideas. I am just brain-storming basically. The TVTs I have played so far are all good, but it's mostly been red squares on the map saying "ATTACK/DEFEND HERE", you always know where the enemy is, where he is hiding and when contact is starting.

 

Just because you dont seem to understand how a real ambush works.

 

If an ambush is executed properly it last about 5 minutes and results in the entire enemy force being slaughtered, preferably while still sitting in their seats.

 

An ambush is not a battle, its an execution. If your in a firefight after ambushing an enemy force YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG.

Share this post


Link to post

Now, I've been away from the weekend so my reply here is a bit late.

 

I disagree. Higher casualties means more people are dead and not having fun while the mission is still going.

 

You're just mad cuz u bad.

 

But I will partly take that statement because I realize high casualty missions may not be realistic, and a mission should be designed to stress the immersion of realistic combat rather than mindless team deathmatch combat. 

 

But nonetheless TVTs will have more dead people, but I think the fun of TVTs greatly overrides the wait if you die early. In addition most people seem to have fun spectating TVTs and chatting during the wait, so I think you're in the minority there. It's not that boring.

 

User received a warning point for this post.

 

 

*Note From Geth* - I didn't mean that in an inflammatory way, but rather as a harmless joke. It's an expression I used to use with my buddies as a joke and i'm sorry if you didn't know that. Once again, no context in these pixels I guess i'll just never joke on the forums again.

Edited by Impulse 9
3.2 - Racist, Offensive, Harassing, Bullying, or Personal Attacks. 3.3 - Disruptive Posting, Flame War Inciting/Contributing. & 3.5 - Catchphrases, Memes, Image Macros and Internet Speak/Slang.

Share this post


Link to post

You're just mad cuz u bad.

Wow what an amazingly eloquent reply. Do me a favour and at least try to be articulate when replying to me.

 

 

I may be in the minority, but I prefer playing the game to spectating it. If I wanted a spectator sport I'd watch cricket.

Share this post


Link to post
That's an utterly fucking terrible idea. If, for example, a platoon of mech infantry is barrelling down on your sections position, you are going to want to withdraw, because it is the sensible thing to do. Not sit in a hole and die. Unless your desire is to simulate WW2 Japanese holdouts, this removes any attempt to have a realistic defence because no one can move.

 

What you wrote doesn't really apply to all missions. I didn't write that AO has to be size of a house where everyone has to sit on their asses and wait to get smashed by a BMP. I was thinking of missions where you have to defend a town or a base, where withdrawal would mean abandoning defended objective and mission failure. Problem you brought up could be resolved by adjusting shape of AO so it includes fall back point and other positions where players can move to and defend, while limiting opportunities for doing flanking or ramboing into rear of enemy forces.

 

AI isn't really good at disengaging targets and quickly withdrawing in an organized manner. That means having players retreat and leave their remaining AI comrades to die would be in many cases not appropriate idea, that could do more harm than good. Considering that mission follows traditional COTVT design most of the forces will consist of AIs, players retreating would mean leaving most of operational forces behind to cover retreat. Then players would have to wait behind friendly positions until they get overrun, so enemy can move up and can be engaged again.

Share this post


Link to post

Took some time to respond here but ...

 

 

I think what makes a good TVT is the same as what makes a good COOP. Essentially, they are the same at the end of the day. The actors involved have their own quirks and limitations. AI tend to be bad at locating enemy forces and accurately engaging. Players are bad at executing orders precisely and maintaining momentum.

 

A mission should be considered, from the start, by what type of experience you are trying to give to the players involved. Before you consider if it is realistic, before you pick some terrain, before you pick the weapons and equipment - what do you want the players to be DOING? What is the neat little scenario and the tasks that the players will have fun executing?

 

Once you have a scenario and the tasks decided, it is time to decide all the other factors. Terrain? Friendly forces? Enemy forces? Equipment? Weather? Time? Limitations?

 

With those questions answered you have the frame for the scenario you want to complete. Since we play at a community which focuses on simulation and using military tactics, a lot of these factors are fairly unforgiving. Once you have completed crafting all your factors and have a near completed concept - take a step back and objectively look at the missions: is it going to be FUN for the players involved?

 

The main source of strife, and variety, comes with each individual mission maker's interpretation of fun and the factors of a mission. The strife comes from actual or perceived incompatibility of the mission with our community's values and the variety comes from their interpretation of fun. Some people enjoy the kinetic portion of a mission the most - shooting enemy forces and blowing them up. Some people enjoy the coordination and teamwork the most - communication with other members of your unit to accomplish a task. Some prefer the planning and strategy - creating and executing a plan to accomplish your mission. These views shape what kind of experience mission makers initially come up with to share with the community.

 

 

 

Now that the theory is out the way, some concrete examples of missions I think would be fun (and please don't steal them as I am actually slowly working on them):

 

Your traditional advance to contact mission. A  platoon advances to destroy a known enemy via FRAGO, the enemy is small enough to be defeated by the platoon's organic assets. The enemy's goal is to break contact and retreat with it's vital assets. The advancing platoon has a clear advantage and the defending force is only remaining in position long enough to secure their vital assets.

 

Local area defense. A platoon is tasked with providing security in one direction for a platoon of friendly tanks and armoured recce vehicles which are engaging enemy forces in the other direction. The enemy's goal is to sneak anti-tank teams into a firing position to disable as many enemy AFVs as possible. The defending force will have to use a variety of defensive techniques to cover a large frontage to defend against enemy anti-tank teams. The attacking force will need to use stealth, deception, and fieldcraft to successful mount anti-tank attacks.

 

A clearing op. A platoon is tasked with clearing an enemy position in a swamp and gathering any intel that remains. The enemy's goal is to delay their enemy for a set period of time to allow the main body to escape and prevent meaningful pursuit before breaking contact themselves.

 

High intensity CQB. A platoon is tasked wtih clearing a small group of buildings/block in a larger city, they have many other friendly forces in cut off positions and so do the enemy. The enemy's goal is to inflict casualties and delay the advance of the enemy in the hopes of being relieved by other maneuvering friendly elements. The defending force would be significantly outnumber by their enemy and need to use their obstacles and prepared positions to slow down and cause casualties to the attacking force.

 

Infiltration. A platoon is tasked with infiltrating from point A to point B, trouble is point B is 2km through an enemy position. The enemy's goal is to disrupt this infiltration by inflicting casualties and passing intel to higher about direction and location of enemy units in the area. The goal of the infiltrating platoon is to ideally not fire a shot, not be seen, and arrive at their destination with no casualties.

 

Counter-reconnaissance patrolling. A platoon is tasked with conducting counter-recce patrols in an area where enemy patrols are suspected to be operating. The enemy's goal is to gain intel, grids and dispositions, of enemy fighting positions. The recce patrols will have to use fieldcraft and stealth the gain a good OP to gather intel. The counter-recce patrols will have to use good coordination and positioning to maintain a screen.

 

Standing patrol raid. A platoon is tasked with conducting a raid on an enemy standing patrol. The enemy's goal is to maintain their standing patrols to disrupt enemy attacks on their MDA while it is being prepared. There will be multiple standing patrols and the enemy will be attacking only one of them.

 

 

 

There are many, many concepts that can be realistically translated into fun Arma missions for UO. This is a few of the types, and even with these types differing situation en/fr and terrain can massively change the mission allowing for a ton of "replayability" mission creation wise. As you can see by the examples, I prefer infantry-centric missions and generally light infantry missions. I am familiar and comfortable with creating scenarios that involve them.

 

 

To sum up, what makes a TVT good and what makes a COOP good are generally the same thing -  a well crafted scenario that is aimed at providing a fun experience for the players and is bounded by the vision of our community.

Edited by beta

Share this post


Link to post

What you wrote doesn't really apply to all missions. I didn't write that AO has to be size of a house where everyone has to sit on their asses and wait to get smashed by a BMP. I was thinking of missions where you have to defend a town or a base, where withdrawal would mean abandoning defended objective and mission failure. Problem you brought up could be resolved by adjusting shape of AO so it includes fall back point and other positions where players can move to and defend, while limiting opportunities for doing flanking or ramboing into rear of enemy forces.

 

AI isn't really good at disengaging targets and quickly withdrawing in an organized manner. That means having players retreat and leave their remaining AI comrades to die would be in many cases not appropriate idea, that could do more harm than good. Considering that mission follows traditional COTVT design most of the forces will consist of AIs, players retreating would mean leaving most of operational forces behind to cover retreat. Then players would have to wait behind friendly positions until they get overrun, so enemy can move up and can be engaged again.

Restrictive AOs still present problems. When defending a town for example, the key terrain may be outside the town, with the actual town itself being difficult to defend.

 

Also even with a smallish AO there's still the possibility of individuals hiding in the bushes for example, then waiting till the attackers go by and begin ramboing. While people could do that in a normal TVT, there's more discouragement against that, because if you get mixed in with enemies, your own side might shoot you. In a COTVT you are safe from the AI.

 

I'm not saying there should be no COTVTs, it's just some scenarios work, some don't. A particularly good example was a Arma 2 COTVT by Mark Interiis, where there were defending AI forces augmented by a player controlled arty battery and FO team. A different mission by a mission maker whose name escapes me at the moment had a separate insurgent group acting independently of the main ai force which was also quite interesting,

Edited by Kingslayer

Share this post


Link to post

Is something considered a COTVT anytime there are AI on the same side as players? I'm thinking of a mission where BLUFOR is acting as a delaying force against advancing OPFOR so that AI BLUFOR can fall back to friendly lines. Unless the player-controlled BLU are completely wiped out neither team players will interact with the AI at all. But the success or failure of the AI's retreat is what the mission hinges on.

 

i.e. 

 

mIkeN2N.png

Share this post


Link to post

Three sides at least, with a sizable playable civilian population. Bluefor need to do something like reach an objective to destroy it while opfor tries to stop them and coerce the civilians into either working with them or giving them information.

 

Some sort of COunter INsurgency OPerationS. There is no way it can go wrong.

 

I love that this joke is still relevant.  Makes my heart warm and fuzzy  :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post

Took some time to respond here but ...

 

 

I think what makes a good TVT is the same as what makes a good COOP. Essentially, they are the same at the end of the day. The actors involved have their own quirks and limitations. AI tend to be bad at locating enemy forces and accurately engaging. Players are bad at executing orders precisely and maintaining momentum.

 

A mission should be considered, from the start, by what type of experience you are trying to give to the players involved. Before you consider if it is realistic, before you pick some terrain, before you pick the weapons and equipment - what do you want the players to be DOING? What is the neat little scenario and the tasks that the players will have fun executing?

 

Once you have a scenario and the tasks decided, it is time to decide all the other factors. Terrain? Friendly forces? Enemy forces? Equipment? Weather? Time? Limitations?

 

With those questions answered you have the frame for the scenario you want to complete. Since we play at a community which focuses on simulation and using military tactics, a lot of these factors are fairly unforgiving. Once you have completed crafting all your factors and have a near completed concept - take a step back and objectively look at the missions: is it going to be FUN for the players involved?

 

The main source of strife, and variety, comes with each individual mission maker's interpretation of fun and the factors of a mission. The strife comes from actual or perceived incompatibility of the mission with our community's values and the variety comes from their interpretation of fun. Some people enjoy the kinetic portion of a mission the most - shooting enemy forces and blowing them up. Some people enjoy the coordination and teamwork the most - communication with other members of your unit to accomplish a task. Some prefer the planning and strategy - creating and executing a plan to accomplish your mission. These views shape what kind of experience mission makers initially come up with to share with the community.

 

 

 

Now that the theory is out the way, some concrete examples of missions I think would be fun (and please don't steal them as I am actually slowly working on them):

 

Your traditional advance to contact mission. A  platoon advances to destroy a known enemy via FRAGO, the enemy is small enough to be defeated by the platoon's organic assets. The enemy's goal is to break contact and retreat with it's vital assets. The advancing platoon has a clear advantage and the defending force is only remaining in position long enough to secure their vital assets.

 

Local area defense. A platoon is tasked with providing security in one direction for a platoon of friendly tanks and armoured recce vehicles which are engaging enemy forces in the other direction. The enemy's goal is to sneak anti-tank teams into a firing position to disable as many enemy AFVs as possible. The defending force will have to use a variety of defensive techniques to cover a large frontage to defend against enemy anti-tank teams. The attacking force will need to use stealth, deception, and fieldcraft to successful mount anti-tank attacks.

 

A clearing op. A platoon is tasked with clearing an enemy position in a swamp and gathering any intel that remains. The enemy's goal is to delay their enemy for a set period of time to allow the main body to escape and prevent meaningful pursuit before breaking contact themselves.

 

High intensity CQB. A platoon is tasked wtih clearing a small group of buildings/block in a larger city, they have many other friendly forces in cut off positions and so do the enemy. The enemy's goal is to inflict casualties and delay the advance of the enemy in the hopes of being relieved by other maneuvering friendly elements. The defending force would be significantly outnumber by their enemy and need to use their obstacles and prepared positions to slow down and cause casualties to the attacking force.

 

Infiltration. A platoon is tasked with infiltrating from point A to point B, trouble is point B is 2km through an enemy position. The enemy's goal is to disrupt this infiltration by inflicting casualties and passing intel to higher about direction and location of enemy units in the area. The goal of the infiltrating platoon is to ideally not fire a shot, not be seen, and arrive at their destination with no casualties.

 

Counter-reconnaissance patrolling. A platoon is tasked with conducting counter-recce patrols in an area where enemy patrols are suspected to be operating. The enemy's goal is to gain intel, grids and dispositions, of enemy fighting positions. The recce patrols will have to use fieldcraft and stealth the gain a good OP to gather intel. The counter-recce patrols will have to use good coordination and positioning to maintain a screen.

 

Standing patrol raid. A platoon is tasked with conducting a raid on an enemy standing patrol. The enemy's goal is to maintain their standing patrols to disrupt enemy attacks on their MDA while it is being prepared. There will be multiple standing patrols and the enemy will be attacking only one of them.

 

 

 

There are many, many concepts that can be realistically translated into fun Arma missions for UO. This is a few of the types, and even with these types differing situation en/fr and terrain can massively change the mission allowing for a ton of "replayability" mission creation wise. As you can see by the examples, I prefer infantry-centric missions and generally light infantry missions. I am familiar and comfortable with creating scenarios that involve them.

 

 

To sum up, what makes a TVT good and what makes a COOP good are generally the same thing -  a well crafted scenario that is aimed at providing a fun experience for the players and is bounded by the vision of our community.

 

Good points, thanks. 

Share this post


Link to post

However, anything that has the attackers clearing an area able to take 80-90% casualties and still win is a bad mission. If you have 3 people left standing over the ruins of the position you took, you did not win

Hebriie, whilst I agree in general, you need to be less dogmatic in your thinking on this.

 

For example, if the remnants of 2 Para had been sat on Arnhem Bridge when XXX Corps rocked up in 1944, I am sure Monty would have considered Market Garden a victory, albeit a costly once (although this counter-factual would have allowed for the relief of the rest of 1st Airborne at Osterbeek and reduced overall casualties). The fact that they were combat ineffective, whilst less than ideal would not have made this a defeat, given the relative manpower strengths at a strategic level.

 

In other situations, such as a Sangin DC situation, the loss of a few troops in an encounter will be much more significant than in ordinary circumstances, as reinforcing would be next to impossible and would significantly increase the risk of the base being over run the next day etc.

 

So, whilst general guidelines are good, they shouldn't be followed slavishly.

Edited by IAJT

Share this post


Link to post

Herbie I personally don't think that an 80% mission ending script is wrong. What is wrong is that in UO we never accept a "mission failure" state. What I want to see more is like I encouraged whilst leading the blufor side on the hostage rescue mission in Zargabad; If we take many casualties then whoever is in command at the time calls for a retreat back to base and calls the mission from there. Having to escape an enemy that has defeated you thus far is just as enjoyable as seeing "mission success" scroll across your screen. Some fo the most intense moments I have been in are running gun battles whilst you desperately try to escape.

Therefore I propose that while we do need more and better TvT missions (beta please get those ideas made they sound incredible) we also need to have a shift in terms of our approach to actually playing these missions.

...

Share this post


Link to post

For example, if the remnants of 2 Para had been sat on Arnhem Bridge when XXX Corps rocked up in 1944, I am sure Monty would have considered Market Garden a victory, albeit a costly once (although this counter-factual would have allowed for the relief of the rest of 1st Airborne at Osterbeek and reduced overall casualties). The fact that they were combat ineffective, whilst less than ideal would not have made this a defeat, given the relative manpower strengths at a strategic level.

The airborne's force's mission was to secure the bridge. If they had only 10 men left at the bridge, then the bridge is not secured.

 

No, this does not mean that the higher's mission would fail, but their own has.

 

Our attack missions where the attackers are taking an objective and can take 85% casualties sre the same. If you take these casualties then you cannot hold the ground that you have taken, so you have not won. Granted, neither has your enemy, so no one would win that TVT mission.

 

It doesn't matter what happens next so far as your higher unit's mission, you have not succeded. If we're going to say that what happens next in the scenario defines who is victorious, then what the players do can have very little to do with the outcome. Yes, the attacker's follow on forves may push through the objective or conduct a relief in place with the attacking platoon. Or the defender's reserves could mount a counter attack and retake the town. I think it would be fairer to simply go by the player's actions to determine winners and losers.

Share this post


Link to post

I would like to see more 3:1 ratios on assault missions but with attacking force failure states being much lower in terms of casualties. That being said I would prefer giving the players the option to retreat rather than just having mission end screen suddenly cut in mid-conflict.

Edited by Peter

Share this post


Link to post

The airborne's force's mission was to secure the bridge. If they had only 10 men left at the bridge, then the bridge is not secured.

 

No, this does not mean that the higher's mission would fail, but their own has.

 

Sorry Hebriie, there is no was you could say if the British Airbrone were in control of the bridge at the point when Guards Armoured Division arrived that they have failed in their mission. It has nothing to do with causualty figures.

 

I am not saying that missions designed to have high rates of atrrittion will often be a good idea, its just that a blanket ban makes no dession.

Edited by IAJT

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry Hebriie, there is no was you could say if the British Airbrone were in control of the bridge at the point when Guards Armoured Division arrived that they have failed in their mission. It has nothing to do with causualty figures.

 

JT this entire conversation is flawed and bares NO resemblance to what the issue at stake is. Literally none.

 

TVT Missions that are over in an hour or two are not comparable to real military operations expected to last at least 2 days.

 

So, therefore, if we were to represent the battle of Arnhem at UO, we would split it down into a series of missions.

 

One of these missions would be the initial assault on the bridge. If, during this initial assault, the airborne forces had taken 85% casualties then they would not be able to hold it against a counter attack. Therefore, their mission to secure the bridge would be a failure. There is no more that needs to be said on this, anything about "Oooh but what if they were still holding the bridge" is frankly bullshit that we cannot base the outcomes of our missions on.

 

Another would be a defensive mission, and as all of my suggestions have been for the attacking side to have no more than 50% (preferably 33%) casualty limits, then that is quite beside the point.

 

Basically, if we go down your road then what the players do doesn't matter. If we just say that one side wins because in the scenario they manage to do something amazing and extra ordinary (as the defence of Arnhem Bridge was at all) it is not fair for the other team and frankly makes all of the mission end conditions pointless.

 

The people who are arguing that it is realistic to have a unit take 80% casualties and still be successful are talking in too high terms for our missions, that are basic platoon attacks at the most.

Share this post


Link to post

When designing many of the scenarios I want to create, I seriously consider each time just not having win conditions ... or a winning or losing side. Did you accomplish your mission and/or follow your commander's intent? Yes? Good, you won. No? Bad, you did not win.

 

Guess you can give some pretty stats like how many people died and how many bullets were shot/grenades ND'd etc ...

Share this post


Link to post

When designing many of the scenarios I want to create, I seriously consider each time just not having win conditions ... or a winning or losing side. Did you accomplish your mission and/or follow your commander's intent? Yes? Good, you won. No? Bad, you did not win.

 

 

And in my opinion that is not necessary, in fact I get the impression that that is one of the root causes for the entire "TvT Problem".

I have the feeling many are of the opinion that TvT missions have to be a (balanced) competition, where the aim is to win, even if it means circumnavigating the makers intent, being extremely "gamey" disregarding all tactical conduct we would normally do in coop.

The idea should be to play the mission as we would a COOP, obviously accounting more for the enemy having a brain, but otherwise conducting ourselves as we do in coops.

Share this post


Link to post

JT this entire conversation is flawed and bares NO resemblance to what the issue at stake is. Literally none.

 

TVT Missions that are over in an hour or two are not comparable to real military operations expected to last at least 2 days.

 

So, therefore, if we were to represent the battle of Arnhem at UO, we would split it down into a series of missions.

 

One of these missions would be the initial assault on the bridge. If, during this initial assault, the airborne forces had taken 85% casualties then they would not be able to hold it against a counter attack. Therefore, their mission to secure the bridge would be a failure. There is no more that needs to be said on this, anything about "Oooh but what if they were still holding the bridge" is frankly bullshit that we cannot base the outcomes of our missions on.

 

Another would be a defensive mission, and as all of my suggestions have been for the attacking side to have no more than 50% (preferably 33%) casualty limits, then that is quite beside the point.

 

Basically, if we go down your road then what the players do doesn't matter. If we just say that one side wins because in the scenario they manage to do something amazing and extra ordinary (as the defence of Arnhem Bridge was at all) it is not fair for the other team and frankly makes all of the mission end conditions pointless.

 

The people who are arguing that it is realistic to have a unit take 80% casualties and still be successful are talking in too high terms for our missions, that are basic platoon attacks at the most.

 

The basic principle that certain objectives are so important that preserving unit strength becomes a secondary consideration is equally applicable to smaller sized engagements, Herbiie.  Again, I am not saying that a basic platoon attack would usual allow for 80% casualties. But it is perfectly plausable to have missions of our player count where a  higher casualty figure would be deemed acceptable by a conventional army. Should this be a standard feature of missions? Again, no.

 

I also don't see why TvT's inherently need a "winner". I have said before that I would quite like to see "imbalanced" TvTs, where onside is expected to win and the challenge is to so in as efficient a means as possible (least casualties, quickest, key assets preserved etc).

Share this post


Link to post

But it is perfectly plausable to have missions of our player count where a  higher casualty figure would be deemed acceptable by a conventional army.

 

It simply isn't. AN objective so important it doesn't matter whether or not you can secure it after you've taken it?

 

I think not.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...