Republic of Folk

Last sunday's play unfortunately saw some confusion and ended up in a clusterfuck as FIA and NATO weren't clear about their allegiance. I need to clear up the briefing and streamline the mission.

I see these distinct alternatives:
1. Straight two-way adversarial
There are only two sides. The defending side has to blow up the caches (brought in by helo) and extract. All defending groups (apart from the pilots) start next to the convoy.

This would be the most straightforward, but due to the speed of the helicopters might be over a lot sooner than what we're used to from A2. A mechanism could be implemented that prevents the pilots from knowing where the convoy is.


2. Two-way adversarial w. understrength defenders and heliborn support
The attackers have a significant advantage in numbers at the start; only one squad max. is defending the convoy. Heli-born support is flown in to even out the numbers. Both convoy defenders and airborn focus on killing the attackers. A condition could be included that only if the convoy defenders are all dead, the heliborn support is allowed to blow up the caches and extract (resulting in a draw/"phyrric victory").

I like the idea of putting time pressure on both sides. Attackers would want to capitalize on their numbers, Airborn locate and support the convoy quickly. But considering that attackers would need to be 2 squads min, plus the one squad at the convoy, we're already at ca. 44 players, leaving little wiggle room for slotting airborn.


3. Straight three-way adversarial
Convoy defenders find themselves between rock-and-a-hard-place. Airborn attackers want to blow caches, motorized to destroy them.

This would create an interesting dynamic but again, we'll have the numbers issue we have in 2.


4. Make convoy defenders AI
By making convoy defenders AI (or pupeteers) the number problem could be alleviated. Question is if they'd be hostile to all or friendly to NATO/airborn.

Looking at the options I'd say this has puppeteer mission written all over it. Puppeteers work really well with missions that have a bit more 'flavour' than the typical adversarial or coop, and it'd provide much more tactical and strategic variety than the other options. As for who the AAF would be hostile to, I'd say the NATO guys should be friendly (maybe put the puppeteers in the blufor section of TS?) I can see the AI herp derping all over the place when they're hostile to everyone.

I would go with #2 and suggest that "understrength" doesn't necessarily need to be confined strictly to # of squads. I put forth the following as a recommendation:

OpFor

• Two 3-FT squads
• Standard Loadout

IndFor

• Two 2-FT squads
• SMGs and pistols
• Squad Leaders have colored smoke and chemlights
• No Comms with BluFor

BluFor

• Two 2-FT squads
• Four choppers with 1 Pilot, 1 Gunner each
• Standard Loadout
• Only "Search Area" markers, no exact locations
• No Comms with IndFor

Administrivia

• Slot 1:1:1
• 2 choppers per slotted squad

This means that early, OpFor has a modest advantage over IndFor in numbers, but a huge one in firepower. BluFor + IndFor will likely, but not certainly overwhelm OpFor, all else equal, but BluFor also has to search for IndFor before they can meet up. You might have BluFor's choppers or backpacks carry MX-C's and ammo or something so that IndFor can be evenly armed after the meetup.

On the numbers side, it takes 14 + 10 + 10 + 4 = 38 people for a full squad on each of the three teams, which is certainly doable.

~ Ferrard

I never played 3-way adversarial before this mission. So in order to distinguish it form all the typical 2-way games that we play, I vote on making it a straight 3-way adversarial even if the numbers are off a bit.

Although, I think there is another interesting option. Make it a two way adversarial to start with. The objective would be for bluefor and indifor to work together to defeat superior Opfor. Then, if/when opfor is defeated the survivors have to fight amongst themselves for saving/destroying the cache. This would maintain some element of risk and reward play. Should people betray each other early and risk being overwhelmed by Opfor, or combine forces knowing that they would have to kill each other in the end.

The only issue is finding a way to prevent Bluefor from planting satchels early like they did on sunday....that was kinda silly. But, I don't know if that is something that should be implemented by the mission maker, or enforced organically by the players.

You might have BluFor's choppers or backpacks carry MX-C's and ammo or something so that IndFor can be evenly armed after the meetup.

All hail the rotary crate god, descending from above! Let us flock to his feet in numbers for our foes do not have RPG-42 and could us all blow up at once.

(Which btw. is totally what's going to happen).

Otherwise good points Ferrard, esp. about using SMGs.

Coming back to this mission:

I've decided to make FIA AI, the question is how to control them. Currently I'm considering either the High Command module or a very restricted ZEUS player.

The latter would essentially only be able to move-drag the units around and prepare defenses for 10-15 minutes. After a short period he'd be loose the ability to move-drag etc. and could only give the units waypoints.

A first run with ZEUS was promising, though maybe a few more FIA-AI might be helpful and using two curators to control the entirety of FIA.

I will also add a "draw" mission-ending to fire if NATO is able to blow up the caches but fucks up the extraction due to a downed helo.

Second ZEUS test run was fairly successful.

Next version will change the objectives so BLUFOR have to seize the caches and CSAT has to destroy them.

What would change if CSAT had their transports removed and would "teleport" in as an infantry force? MRAPs would stay as the are.

Alternatively transports could still be moved by COs teleport but wouldn't be pre-mounted.

With the same large AOE? Well, for one it would take CSAT certainly more time to reach the objective, which they are already hard pressed about anyway. If they had to move on foot, that's a lot of time NATO can use to their advantage do get to the crates first.