Page 1 of 1
fa3_c52_mutineers
Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 1:02 am
by darkChozo
The AAF have staged a mutiny. For some reason, they decided to do this in the middle of a town swarming with their former allies. Now a NATO task force has to come in and save them. Also there are divers for super tactically relevant reasons.
From what I saw I think the first run went well, the only thing I want to change is to give the AAF a little more time before CSAT starts attacking proper. That being said, I wouldn't mind some feedback from the NATO side of things.
Version History
v2
Added some more fortifications to the church.
Gave AAF more time before CSAT attacks.
Restricted IFV movement in the town a bit more.
v1
Initial release
Re: fa3_c52_mutineers
Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 12:09 pm
by Sparks
As an FTL I thought it went pretty well. The ending was certainly dramatic
Re: fa3_c52_mutineers
Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 2:57 pm
by Peasant
From a NATO squad leaders perspective:
Are the divers supposed to be engineers? Because it would be really useful to have some engineers in this mission so the possibility of clearing the mines exists. Because my vehicle crew had to resort to mine clearing by machine gun (which is a bit gamey) It would also give us an excuse to use the Bobcat, and we never get to use the Bobcat
Otherwise, really fun and nicely chaotic.
Re: fa3_c52_mutineers
Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 4:58 pm
by darkChozo
The mines are really supposed to be avoided, not cleared. A Bobcat is pretty tempting, but it's not really that good at clearing AT mines and I don't really want NATO to be able to fully repair the IFVs. I might give the riflemen mine detectors or something, though.
Re: fa3_c52_mutineers
Posted: Sun Mar 27, 2016 9:00 pm
by wolfenswan
- The Panther vehicle crews were slotted in the wrong positions (at least for BRAVO); so CO was in driver seat etc.
- Driver didn't have a GPS but that might be due to ARMA's quirky vehicle UI - possibly the UI is more user-friendly in the "LAVs" (allowing driver to turn out, binoc use from turned out position etc.). If that's the case I'd rather see those used
- The mission seemed a bit on the easy side with three panthers. I think a few heavier vehicles for CSAT would help. Again the LAVs would be interesting as the are more susceptible to small arms fire.
Re: fa3_c52_mutineers
Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2016 1:25 am
by darkChozo
Yeah, crews were definitely in the wrong position. I blame 3den. I like the Panthers, they're awkward but I think that adds something. Besides, Marshalls are too good.
One problem with this mission design-wise is that you can't put anything in the city that will absolutely murder the AAF squad. That means IFVs are pretty much right out. I added more AT in the last version, but overall I honestly think it works out because it's not just a destroy-the-dudes mission; the IFVs have to keep the infantry alive. I'm thinking I might throw in a mid-mission enemy helo in a hypothetical future version though, I like the havok that helis can cause.
Re: fa3_c52_mutineers
Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2016 12:59 pm
by boberro
Drivers have GPS only if they're turned out, and they can't turn out in tracked ifv's because BI hates armour and everything that is not a helicopter.
Since not using half of the vehicles is out of question (we would be left with just three), all commanders must be tought to never assume driver knows where to go, micromanage all movement and take all the fun from driving.
Re: fa3_c52_mutineers
Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2016 10:12 pm
by Pooter
darkChozo wrote:I'm thinking I might throw in a mid-mission enemy helo in a hypothetical future version though, I like the havok that helis can cause.
Especially if one of the hosts is adding to the situation by controlling one of the choppers.