fa3_cz64_good_morning_astan

[Sparks]

You missed other options; we have several hurons fly over us.

Why not have the Hurons land, have the troops load up and swipe parachutes (or script things), and then go paradrop around the town?

I mean, in real life, you'd take the airport and another group would paradrop to the town, but this way you'd get both an amphibious assault *and* a paradrop assault in the same mission (and that'd let you bring in Juliet squad for anyone lost on the first assault to keep it fun).


Or, since there's a helo in the hanger on the airfield already, why not leave a few more helos on the airfield, have us nick them and go air-mobile to take the town with at least one squad?

[SuicideKing]

How about dropping in a hunters, and stealing the enemy's trucks and IFVs?

*returns to mission lab*

[Kefirz]

Dropping into a hostile town is simply mad. And if you are thinking of a HSLD type of insertion, then we would get chewed up by the technicals and the bigger caliber Rahims.
Additionally, we would loose the IFV firepower of a mechanized unit.

[Ferrard Carson]

My opposition to Hunters in this particular case is informed by the major weakness of this mission being logistics. This is my "Never again" attitude after I created a logistics nightmare in A2's "Running Rabbit".

List out the transport modes we saw on Sunday:

Alpha: Starts in 2x Speedboats, becomes Footmobile, then mid-mission is shifted to 2x Unarmed Hunters + 2x Armed Hunters.
Bravo: Starts in 1x Unorganic IFV and 1x Speedboat, with no real mid-mission movement plan.
CO & Attachments: Starts in 1x Unorganic IFV, with no real mid-mission movement plan.
Engineers: Starts in 1x Little Bird, then becomes Footmobile to clear mines / IEDs, with a random Little Bird flying around the AO either scouting or pestering the CO for something to do.

I think an ideal arrangement (if it's possible to slingload anything heavier than a Hunter) would be:

• Run with the OrBat-2015 Mechanized Infantry Platoon (11-man squads consisting of 1x 6-man Fireteam + 1x 3-man Vehicle + SL + Medic).
• Make the Alpha / Bravo / Charlie / CO vehicle crews man the speedboats with the crunchies riding inside.
• Once the airfield is cleared, airdrop in Marshalls / Panthers and the vehicle crews have their vehicles for the rest of the mission.

It's a more-or-less seamless transition without requiring any mid-mission squad reorganization like Hunters do. You can switch the Transport Little Bird out for an Attack Little Bird to give them something to do, and if you want you can see if the game will let you slingload a Bobcat for the Engineers, and you can slingload Hunters for the attachments.

If slingloading is limited to Hunters, then my recommendation would be making the airfield a vehicle park with Marshalls / Panthers that the vehicle-less Mech. Infantry platoon needs to recapture, then slingloading Hunters in for the attachments.

~ Ferrard

[Aqarius]

Or, you know, make it an amphibious landing for the platoon, and have the rest of the guys blackhawk in.

[Sparks]

the rest of the guys blackhawk in.

Getting so tired of the *hawks though. Wy-55s for the whup-whup-whup and the hang-out-the-open-door aesthetic...

[Ralian]

Oh god... this thread blew up in one day. I see several opinions here, so I'm just going to try and rapid-fire my responses to your opinions here as concisely as I can.

A few of my own thoughts to head things off:
I really fucking wish there was an armored 7-man light armed vehicle. It would make logistics a lot easier... one vehicle per squad is far too few to be interesting, three per squad is far too complicated. But never fret... you'll have to deal with offroads in future missions as the AAF
Would it be acceptable to give each squad a single hunter for the SL which they could use to ferry half a FT between positions if they wished?
Also, if all else fails with the sling loading and such (especially with bobcats) I can always do a literal cargo drop with literal cargo parachutes.

Re: Sparks

I am really sorry it was a bit dull for the infantry this time around. I should have been able to fix that as zeus, but my problem wasn't a lack of targets, it's just that all the targets seemed to go to the heavier assets like the IFVs. This was the first large scale run-through I've seen of a mission I designed, so it's only going to get less boring from here I hope.

I really need to fix the sling loading issues... like I said I tried for hours to get it working. It was initially supposed to be an LZ, but I had to settle for them falling :/
I'm sorry to hear vehicles hate you, there's not much I can do about that. I suppose you would be less at risk if we dialed back the number of hunters.

In response to your airdrop comments, it wouldn't be outlandish to have a charlie squad drop in, but it would make things inherently more complicated, also the terrain isn't really suitable for that near Molos. I will likely be doing air drops in future missions.

Re: Audiox

I fucking love hunters. I just wish that they carried an extra person or two in the middle or on the side or some shit. You're absolutely correct that hunters add an extra layer to the combat strategy, but ferrard is also correct that four hunters literally dropping from the sky created problems. So here's the question: Do you think the mission would retain those qualities if each SL had a hunter hmg to ferry half a ft at a time with? I think it would give the SL more mobility, screening, equipment, and support options.

Typically the only one with MRAPs in our missions is the CO, but the CO is usually too busy with squads and attachments to let individual fire teams rearm or get support, and that's no fun. It would also allow SL to give the medic to one fireteam, then ferry the other fireteam (red team at once, then blue team) to flank the enemy or reach some objective faster. Now I know, fireteams are usually not to be split, but I'm not advocating for long distance travel here - just a few hundred meters down the road (like in my mission!) and tell red team to hunker down until blue team arrives.

I think this idea of partial mobility is worth a shot - it would suit our ORBAT perfectly (or nearly perfectly,) be simpler and also keep that extra level of strategy and logistical options that hunters were intended to open up in this mission.

Re: Ferrard Carson

Holy hell. I can't help but agree, that played out much simpler in my head, even during testing, than it ended up doing Sunday. I guess I just had to see everyone struggling to properly split up and utilize all provided assets at once to believe how confusing it would be for all. Although the reason I provided all those vehicles is because I share audio's point of view - we need more ground mobilization than just dismounting and running towards objectives - this mission needs to be toned down and refined quite a bit.

I like the idea of switching up the orbat to better suit the mission. It might be akin to the idea I pitched to audio above... I would also love to hear your opinion on that, do you think it would be both interesting and less confusing than what we had going on sunday?

Wy-55s for the whup-whup-whup and the hang-out-the-open-door aesthetic...

This. I was thinking of doing some Wy-55s for combination attack/transport helos in my series.

Anyways apologies for the giant wall of text. I still have an open mind for what to do for version two, so tanks for all your valuable input

[Ferrard Carson]

I really fucking wish there was an armored 7-man light armed vehicle. It would make logistics a lot easier... one vehicle per squad is far too few to be interesting, three per squad is far too complicated.

What you're thinking of is either the CSAT Marid or the NATO Panther. There is no AAF equivalent - both Gorgon and Warrior Mora have powerful auto-cannons. The Panther has heavier armor (and is not amphib capable) and the Marid has more mobility (and is amphib capable), but they're both armed with 500 rounds of M2 HMG and 96 rounds of Grenade MG. Both have 3 crew and 8-man pax, and both are the default mechanized vehicle in the F3 Template.

I'd suggest reconsidering the number of vehicles - 2 vics per squad plus a full 2-FT squad is just slightly more than taxing for the average squad leader. A good squad lead can keep them all straight, but even good squad leads start to get stressed once they move over 3 elements to manage. This is the carefully considered reason that FCI (Ferrard Carson Industries) made the default F3 Mech. Platoon have squads with just 1x 6-man FT and 1x Vehicle, and the reason default F3 platoons in general don't have more than 2-elements per squad. Allows for one attachment per squad without breaking the rule of 3.

Would it be acceptable to give each squad a single hunter for the SL which they could use to ferry half a FT between positions if they wished?

I've got a lot of reasons to disagree with this:

• I question how useful an MRAP would be for an SL, especially an armed one. A good SL spends about half their time looking at the map, half the time looking at the terrain in front of their squad, and all the time talking with everyone. Shooting and positioning to shoot really aren't in the Squad Lead's job description at all, unless you mean positioning their elements to shoot. An SL focusing on their HMG-armed MRAP is likely being a sub-par Squad Leader.
• Vehicles are an electromagnet for every type of enemy fire that could conceivably damage them, and MRAPs can't repel firepower of that magnitude like a Panther can. An SL focusing on their HMG-armed MRAP will likely end up dead very, very quickly (thus being a sub-par Squad Leader).
• The firepower advantage is already duplicating other assets you already have in mission, and RCSWs / Vehicle weapons in general are stupidly powerful in ArmA 3 compared with infantry guns - this mission already weights the vehicles a little too much, so adding more is what I would consider the wrong option unless you go full vehicle.
• A lone MRAP just doesn't add enough to the transport options to be very useful at that either. If you the SL have half a fire-team in the back for transport, then that means 1) you don't have a dedicated gunner, and 2) you the Squad Lead are micromanaging part of one of your fireteams, which is as much of a no-no as CO's telling Fireteams what to do.

Also, if all else fails with the sling loading and such (especially with bobcats) I can always do a literal cargo drop with literal cargo parachutes.

This is also something that we typically do not see in our missions, so I heartily approve!

Holy hell. I can't help but agree, that played out much simpler in my head, even during testing, than it ended up doing Sunday. I guess I just had to see everyone struggling to properly split up and utilize all provided assets at once to believe how confusing it would be for all. Although the reason I provided all those vehicles is because I share audio's point of view - we need more ground mobilization than just dismounting and running towards objectives - this mission needs to be toned down and refined quite a bit.

Logistics is something mission-makers don't ever quite understand about their missions until they see them play out in a session. Like I mentioned before, my own realization about logistics came when my A2 mission Running Rabbit took 1.5 hours to get halfway to the objective, entirely because there were so many logistical issues for the CO / SLs to worry about. I loved the heck out of that mission. It had a tank, tons of motorized infantry, a pseudo-IED, Deltas mounted in Little Birds, attack choppers, Blackhawk support, a big Engineering team, an Ammo Truck for rearmament, a flying BMP-2, so many M-14s and Mk. 48's and M-60's that I couldn't play it without changing my pants afterwards, etc... but ultimately, the mission was completely awful for the CO and Squad Leaders because of those logistics. That's when I adopted KISS pretty heartily into my missions, and even now I have to stop and think, "Wait... this is obvious to me, but is it obvious to the CO who has never seen this mission before and thinks very much unlike me? Will this lead to a smooth session or a frustrating one?"

I like the idea of switching up the orbat to better suit the mission. It might be akin to the idea I pitched to audio above... I would also love to hear your opinion on that, do you think it would be both interesting and less confusing than what we had going on sunday?

I really cannot recommend the F3 Mechanized Platoon (start from "What is a Mechanized Platoon?") enough to you. It allows for your use of boats, it provides a mostly seamless transition between "Vehicle Crew mans the boat in support of the swimmers" to "Vehicle Crew mans the IFV in support of the crunchies," it provides a fairly balanced distribution of vehicles to crunchies, and it's one of our standard platoon layouts, which helps COs and SLs a lot when they're planning or commanding.

~ Ferrard

[Ralian]

I really fucking wish there was an armored 7-man light armed vehicle. It would make logistics a lot easier... one vehicle per squad is far too few to be interesting, three per squad is far too complicated.

What you're thinking of is either the CSAT Marid or the NATO Panther. There is no AAF equivalent - both Gorgon and Warrior Mora have powerful auto-cannons. The Panther has heavier armor (and is not amphib capable) and the Marid has more mobility (and is amphib capable), but they're both armed with 500 rounds of M2 HMG and 96 rounds of Grenade MG. Both have 3 crew and 8-man pax, and both are the default mechanized vehicle in the F3 Template.

I know of the panther and madrids, I was hoping more for a light armored vehicle like a hunter with more cargo space. Not really sure what I was going for there, I think it was late when I wrote it.

Would it be acceptable to give each squad a single hunter for the SL which they could use to ferry half a FT between positions if they wished?

I've got a lot of reasons to disagree with this:

• I question how useful an MRAP would be for an SL, especially an armed one. A good SL spends about half their time looking at the map, half the time looking at the terrain in front of their squad, and all the time talking with everyone. Shooting and positioning to shoot really aren't in the Squad Lead's job description at all, unless you mean positioning their elements to shoot. An SL focusing on their HMG-armed MRAP is likely being a sub-par Squad Leader.
• Vehicles are an electromagnet for every type of enemy fire that could conceivably damage them, and MRAPs can't repel firepower of that magnitude like a Panther can. An SL focusing on their HMG-armed MRAP will likely end up dead very, very quickly (thus being a sub-par Squad Leader).
• The firepower advantage is already duplicating other assets you already have in mission, and RCSWs / Vehicle weapons in general are stupidly powerful in ArmA 3 compared with infantry guns - this mission already weights the vehicles a little too much, so adding more is what I would consider the wrong option unless you go full vehicle.
• A lone MRAP just doesn't add enough to the transport options to be very useful at that either. If you the SL have half a fire-team in the back for transport, then that means 1) you don't have a dedicated gunner, and 2) you the Squad Lead are micromanaging part of one of your fireteams, which is as much of a no-no as CO's telling Fireteams what to do.

Also, if all else fails with the sling loading and such (especially with bobcats) I can always do a literal cargo drop with literal cargo parachutes.

This is also something that we typically do not see in our missions, so I heartily approve!

Duly noted and duly noted.

Thanks for the advice, and I might be using the mech platoon order next time... we'll see how it will work.

[fer]

Cross-posting from Skype in case this gets lost in the mix:

[20/08/2015 11:07:02] Alan A Richardson (Fer): Folks, we're still bedding in the new ORBAT - of which there are established patterns for infantry and mechanised squads (though you can in most cases choose to use wheeled or tracked armour for the vic in a mechanised squad). Please try not to fuck around too much with the ORBAT for now.
[20/08/2015 11:08:10] Alan A Richardson (Fer): Making a platoon with 2 x mechanised squads, one with wheeled and another with tracked is fine - you can explain it as a combination of squads from different mechanised units.
[20/08/2015 11:09:25] Alan A Richardson (Fer): But above all, please bear in mind that we selected the current approach to mechanised squad ORBAT for a reason, and after a lot of testing. Leading elements with vics is hard for us (for all sorts of reasons), so not departing (too far) from the patterns established raises the chances of guests being able to focus on the mission and not on logistics.

TL/DR: We spent months designing, testing and iterating ORBAT 2015 in infantry and mechanised squad variants - please try to align with the core principles baked into these patterns, even if you substitute vics. Also, bear in mind that you can always create new attachments - for example, replace the 2-man HMG team with a 2-man HMG Hunter crew (it's a question of loadouts, pre-mounting and editing the slot names).