Hi Broi,
Thanks for the email. I'm also determined that we can learn from the
snafus and work towards another session. Some responses in-line below:
> > We customarily play each mission both ways. The attacking team gets to
> > defend in the next round and vice versa. This way there can be no talk about
> > unbalanced missions, since if the other side has a slightly upper hand,
> > those players will be in the receiving end during the next round. I'm
> > referring to someone's comment after Kuokkanen's (now notorious, I guess)
> > mission about "how unbalanced can a mission be", in case that was a popular
> > opinion.
That comment came from one of the freelancers, and IIRC it was the same
guy who I ended up having to shout at later on. He brought entirely the
wrong attitude to the event.
Balance is a tricky thing, but the Folk (and I think also MARSOC)
players understand that it's not about things being completely symmetrical.
> > We would have swapped teams tonight after each round in every mission, but
> > you wished a new mission every time instead, so we obliged. (Of course, that
> > might not have made things better in Kuokkanen's mission. We ourselves had a
> > lot of trouble organising the assault on the village with seven teams, two
> > of which lead be unknown freelancers, and having to rely on simple map
> > markers and spoken communication.)
A hard truth that I think Folk/MARSOC will have to swallow is that our
plan in that mission was bad. We didn't push out to the treelines, and
we got sucked into thinking the armour assets would be useful. Our
issues with situational awareness and communications made it worse, but
the plan itself meant that we were unlikely to win. I'm going to have to
tell our players that in the AAR thread
The reason I asked for us to play Cacheola next was that I guessed (half
correctly, as it turned out), that a return to something a bit more
familiar would settle some of the players on the Folk/MARSOC side. Plus,
we had had such a good time playing it against LDDK last time, I hoped
it would be a safe bet.
> > What comes to the other things - mainly the defenders' Bradley in Cinderella
> > (the laser designator thing in Cacheola was sadly forgotten, as said) - I
> > would still like to emphasize the mission makers' power to make it
> > unnecessary to enforce any additional rules or even make gentlemen's
> > agreements as to what tactics are chosen and how missions are played (but
> > needless to say, we will honor any such agreement made). For instance, if
> > the Bradley isn't meant to be taken far from the base, you can limit its
> > fuel. If you want the attackers' base to be safe from the defenders'
> > harassment, you can put it farther away.
On both counts you're right, and we'll likely work to patch both
missions for any future use.
> > Myself, I rather enjoy the feeling of urgency when you know that the enemies
> > can attempt anything in their imagination the moment the game starts. Of
> > course, I still see your point, and no one likes to get killed the first
> > minutes into the game.
The funny thing was that you were very aggressive in both Cinderella and
Cacheola, but nobody minded at all when you ambushed our Hummers in
Cacheola. It was a great experience (although I was left hiding in a
bush due to a lack of seats in our remaining vehicles!).
The difference in Cinderella was that we had not even mounted our
vehicles and got underway. TBH, the lack of tags/STHUD meant most people
were running around trying to identify their team-mates and the correct
vehicles to mount. Because we came under fire at this precise moment, it
felt like spawn-killing. We're going to investigate ways of tweaking
that mission so that becomes less of a possibility.
> > Anyway, I think the simplest way to fix these things for our next session is
> > that you select the mission or the missions and also tell us in advance if
> > you think there is anything or any tactic in those missions to specifically
> > avoid. On my part, I now know better about how you feel about e.g.
> > unprovoked Bradley attacks by the defender.
I'd like to go one better, and work *with* your mission makers on 1-2
collaborations, rather than attempt to impose stuff on you.
> > Again, thanks for the company. I am sorry about the snafus and bad luck, and
> > hopefully it wasn't so negative an experience that we can't overcome it. All
> > I said in the last post still stands.
And for my part, again, thanks for the invitation. Whilst it was
frustrating at times, I would like to work through the issues. I think our
respective communities have more in common than differences, and I
really enjoy gaming with you guys!
Best wishes,
Fer
