fa_c72_lightningstrike

[Eagle_Eye]

I thought this mission went relatively well compared to my others so far. As always logistics in these types of missions are a problem, but I thought we did alright. Once everyone remains patient at the start things tend to go ok. The loadout for the pre-mounting of the cars could do with being fixed to a better layout (as mentioned by audiox and aqarius tonight).

A couple of things that need fixing.
- The GMG trucks had no map marker.
- The explosive charge is probably not enough to destroy tanks (FTLS should prob have a satchel).
- AI jumped in a few of the vehicles that are supposed to be locked (I could have sworn I set it properly)

Apart from that 2 of the 3 objectives were completed pretty well. It was a shame the Hunters were abandoned so early, as it leads to a bit of a foot-trek, but that had more to do with CO and SL preferences than with the mission itself I feel. Obviously not a mission for casual everyday use, but fun in the right atmosphere.

[Kefirz]

GMG gunner here, from a personal perspective, given that each FT has a HMG Hunter, it felt that the GMG was a bit... useless. Maybe switching it out to a proper IFV, (IFV, not a technical ) would be more beneficial to the mission success.

About the explosive satchels/charges/whatever, do a quick test which does the most damage, because I think that the satchels won't kill the tanks with one go.

Oh and don't disable the thermals, no matter who says so, without them... in this mission... we would be dead at the first crossroad.

[Eagle_Eye]

I think having an IFV is probably overkill a little bit, as there is already some pretty heavy firepower in the mission and its pushing enough AI as it is, so the difficulty couldnt really be increased to compensate. The GMGs might be a little bit underpowered, but I guess thats something the host has to take into account when slotting.

I just checked, and the satchel charge will take out the 2 tanks in one blast if placed between them, so each FTL and SL now has 2 of them. That was just me not realising that the satchel in the assign_gear script wasnt actually a satchel. Fixed now. As are the markers for the Weapons team and Gun trucks.

And for once, in a bug that wasnt my fault. I checked all of the motorpool vehicles (Tanks, Artillery pieces and IFRITS). They were all locked in the editor, with no ammunition, and yet still the AI decided to get in. Same with one of the AA tanks at the other objective. How to stop them jumping in I do not know, but at least they had no shells to shoot at us with.

(I imagine there is a similar thing going on in "Bees" aswell, Ive seen a couple of times AI getting into the objective tanks, even though they dont shoot. I would imagine it has no ammo and is supposed to be locked, but it looks like ASR AI do not care.)

[wolfenswan]

I liked, balance was surprisingly good given we had thermals and other rather powerful toys. Some idle thoughts:

Logistics/ammo:
What I think might be an interesting addition (and would give the THs something to do) would be to add supply crates and ammo supply containers at the base, which can be sling-lifted in by a Huron (possibly Ghosthawk too). That would allow to resupply the hunters in the field and prevent RATs from running out of ammo too quickly. They could also contain the satchels to prevent overburdening the infantry.

Balancing:
I still advocate for removal of thermals from hunters but adding a stronger recon element. The problem with thermals in A3 is that they pierce everything (including fog), making fighting infantry trivial. To counter this you need heavy vehicles which in turn make the day of player infantry miserable.

So for balancing I'd suggest to reduce the # of HMG hunters per squad to one, increase the # of AI infantry and tweak the enemy armored vehicles (e.g. by disabling their termals and removing the GMG systems) to make them less destructive.

As driving a convoy blindly into enemy positions is suicidal, maybe add a dedicated recon infantry team already deployed further towards the enemy (incl. UAV).

I'm not sure about AH1 being a blackfoot. It went down fast this time but it's also very powerful due to the auto cannon and thermals.

Duration

The mission is fairly sprawling and you'll run into the issue we had yday of a few disorganized survivor just managing on somehow. I think a dedicated wave respawn squad (Juliet) might help here and could be flown in, maybe with sling-loaded hunters as support. Alternatively, it never hurts to split a good but too long mission into two: One destroying the AA assets, the others the assault on the vehicle depo.

And for once, in a bug that wasnt my fault. I checked all of the motorpool vehicles (Tanks, Artillery pieces and IFRITS). They were all locked in the editor, with no ammunition, and yet still the AI decided to get in. Same with one of the AA tanks at the other objective. How to stop them jumping in I do not know, but at least they had no shells to shoot at us with.

Yep, it's an ASR_AI3 bug and I've forwarded the issue to the creator. For now I'll just disable the feature server-side.

I just checked, and the satchel charge will take out the 2 tanks in one blast if placed between them, so each FTL and SL now has 2 of them. That was just me not realising that the satchel in the assign_gear script wasnt actually a satchel. Fixed now. As are the markers for the Weapons team and Gun trucks.

Why not put the satchels inside the Hunters and/or transport helos? Another option would be using the supply drop module or use Hurons to lift in supply crates.

[Kefirz]

The AH1 didn't go down fast, it was up there for quite a while, longer than the GMG, that's for sure
I agree with Wolf, if you will decide to remove thermals, then you really need to nerf all those CSAT IFV's, and Ifrits, that are roaming around.

Could it be, like with infantry, that the AI just doesn't give a shit about foliage and keeps blasting through it?


Has anybody ever thought about adding a JTAC and an A-10 in these type of missions, where you have to destroy large amounts of enemy vehicles?

[wolfenswan]

Could it be, like with infantry, that the AI just doesn't give a shit about foliage and keeps blasting through it?

It's thermals. AI is restricted by foilage (and smoke), even if it doesn't appear that way. But thermals make it a lot easier for both players and AI to see through that stuff.

[Aqarius]

Just a pet peeve of mine: when making missions, a good habit is to take a step back, cound all the AT assets the players have, and then count all the armor (MRAPs are armor) the enemy has. The ratio should be upwards of 2:1 in favor of the players (3+:1 if there's tanks involved) or things tend to get realy ugly real fast.

[Sparks]

It might reduce people's outrage if there was a note in the briefing reminding co-pilots that if the helo is going down, they can't eject, they're expected to help with autorotation

(Actually, that's seriously a thing, autorotation under fire is a major pilot workload and having a copilot watching for obstacles in the landing area, incoming fire, and generally helping with comms and the like is a major asset and improves the odds of survival enormously)

As the attack helo proved on this run by autorotating on top of a small wall which then killed them

(Arma 3's damage model for helos appears to work by painting the helos with highly explosive paint - scratch it and goodbye...)

[Eagle_Eye]

Thanks for all the feedback guys, after seeing a few of my missions played I think I have a better Idea how to approach them in the future.

In terms of this mission, I plan to give it an overhaul ASAP:
- I want to consolidate some of the enemy positions, so slightly less roaming AI, but make the objectives a bit more central to the map.
- This opens up the possibilty to have better recon capabilities and plan assaults better. A dedicated recon team with UAVs should be good for this.
- Apart from one MARID (which didnt spawn behind us, but somehow drove all the way around), I didnt think there was too much armor threats to really overwhelm. Removing some GMG turrets is a good idea however.
- Originally only Alpha 1 and Bravo 1 had HMG hunters, and I increased this to all fireteams. I might revert this so that the GMG trucks become more valuable.
- Satchels in the hunters is an obvious nice addition.
- To be honest I never expected the helicopters to be used. They were kind of just there in case there was a lot of people playing, or the commander/host had a cool idea in mind. It was nice to see them used though. I will probably disable thermals in it and the hunters though. I am not personally a fan of thermals either.
- In terms of reinforcements, I think TH1 and/or TH2 could easily be loaded up with charlie squad (or they could drive in in their HEMMT) if the host so wished. There is also 2 MMG/2 MAT teams that weren't touched in this playthrough. Maybe they should be separated from the rest, but I think they are all mobile enough to get to the battle if the host wishes to reinforce.

Lots to think about for v4. Hopefully we get to try it again soon!

[wolfenswan]

Observations v5:

• Thermals were still there, not sure if omission
• Seems COs favor the southern approach, moving out of the AO bonds (around Neochori). Not sure if this should be enforced more or the AO modified to accommodate for that (reaching until the shore but less expansive in the North)
• Given the size of the AO I think a mandatory ZEUS would be handy. Limited knowledge of the players and a finite access to CSAT reinforcements (pre-placed?). That would make the affair less of a moving from pockets of resistance kinda thing and allow the AI to act more dynamically.
• I think the mission should be split into two or made much more compact. We had barely taken out the AAAs after roughly 50 minutes and were already fairly disorganized. There wasn't really any platoon coherence during the assault on the depot imho.