Just some thoughts or strategical analysis attempt..
- Very nice and big objectives
- Nice choice of BRDM (I really like them and appreciate them from the MM point - as there is not big choice of light armored vics without IR vision or being over powered)
- Nice weapons (always happy for non-standard faction ! Btw, it even helps calibrate the mission)
- I even enjoyed the mines later (the Zeus wild card - not just PLT wild card - could be nice innovation)
- I liked that it was not easy win at all - that we could fail
FPS / Lags:
- I have experienced during the first firefigth / attack on Obj 1, FPS about 12-25 for about 1-2 minutes (from +60)
- Had +-8 seconds lag when the cluster AP mines were dropped from heli
- This mission needed "Tactical Planning" (and I would like to see this mission planning section active again)
- Both objectives were difficult to approach
- Lack of recon for first objective (could lead to bad approach)
- The first objective was not attacked in 90* angle and it lead to bunching up Alfa and Bravo SQD on the same place
(for further simplification purpose, of this reply, was red team Alfa 1-2. FT: Mother, AAR: Blodos, AR: Midnight, AT: Delta. Lets say yellow was A 1-1)
- What I have never enjoyed in arma is running through open space, even when it s 100m. (it s running into possible ambush with EI in tree lines) (pathfinding or avoiding of automatically drawn lines on map)
- The objective should not be only one focus, but the terrain and approach too
- Lines on map for movement should not be in stone but FTL should have use terrain in his/her adventage
- To stay in open on field is not the best idea too (Obj 2, OW or OP, FT 1-2)
- It s nonsense to push straight throught field to get shot at when there is defilade 100m to the left (100 meters = 25 seconds in jog and 20 sec in sprint)
- proper comms were not used (including me) (when callsign is not called it s easy to ignore the message )
- When ASL says "Bravo move there" - Is it Alfa - 1-2 (bravo) or is it Bravo SQD ? (this is pretty confusing - so it s better to use color of teams (red, blue..) or Alfa 1-1 or Alfa 1-2 (just not the bravo for Alfa 1-2 !))
- Lack of information - in the first attack I had no idea where SQD Bravo is (it could lead to blue on blue situation 58:00 CNTR - suppressive fire on my order - as I had no knowledge where Bravo is and assumed there is only Alfa 1-1 / yellow in problems...)
- TLs should be told automatically (informed) where is friendly Squad / Team (prevent blue on blue)
Story Obj 1 first attack: (CNTR 54:00)
- A 1-1 and 1-2 were moving into attack in traveling squad column.. When yellow went into lower ground instantly got casualities. A 1-2 was fired at and later two members were injured. Problem was that ASL was down, throught trees was not possible to see anything and if A 1-2 tried to move - we've got under fire. We were waiting that A 1-1 will retreat, which took incredible ammound of time. I had no idea where Bravo SQD is. Which almost led on blue on blue when I ordered suppressive fire to help yellow team - bad decision - it s why the 90* _I is used - to avoid FF / blue on blue. If I understood well, PLT was down or KIA too. Command was eliminated. A 1-2 later with two light injured succesfully retreated.
--- no recon or bad, open field for Bravo SQD, traveling squad column.. in attack, command quickly down, mass cas situation, constant enemy fire (Dshk) from unknown position
Story Obj 1 second attack:
- A 1-2 (red) moved at point, carefully and slowly, by order in traveling squad column towards obj. A 1-2 succesfully got into the obj while A 1-1 moved from 90* angle. (I actually believed it s Bravo SQD and A 1-1 is still fallowing red - and was waiting them to come from the same side to help us) (later I saw Bravo SQD was somewhere else)
--- squad column into attack ?..
Story Obj 2:
- ASQD, A 1-2 was tasked to cover main road from OW in distance about 450m while Bravo SQD moved towards port. SQD Bravo was engaged by EI in port. A 1-2 (red) had limited visibility and hardly could anyhow cover BSQD. EI late approached main road and most of the contacts was eliminated.
A 1-2 was tasked to move to port. As line is a guide.. I decided to use a defilade on left side aprox 100m away, in case we took fire from Nord (so just to go prone is enough). BSQD was in contact yet.
By order, A 1-2 moved along road while MI-24 dropped something on us. As it looked like cluster incendiary (got bad lagging for sec) or cluster HE, I was sure we are dead. When something exploded and it looked like it s over. I see somebody down on left side (Left -FRONT- Right (front is where the team is facing/bearing/moving to) or Clock by given reference point - white house, 300m) and as I moved the cluster Mine got me.
--- laying in the open, moving throught open field when defilade was so close, I dont believe that ASQD could effectively cover BSQD (CNTR 1:54:00+),
--- ASQL failed to provide any sort of fire for attacking BSQD at 1:54:00+) but was able to provide friendly fire at 1:59:00+ while Alfa 1-2 (red) had to go throught open field (as I understood the order - or I believe the line was in the open and I pushed more to the left to have possible cover in defilade)
What I do see like the biggest mistake is that we played like two bunched teams by 10 ppl instead like 4 teams by 4. So, where we ussually have 6-8 ppl we had in first attack +-20.
When moving into expected contact bounding can be good thing.
When I jump over the what never happened. (Yes, I mean the mines )
(CNTR 2:23:40+) (I was not present)
It s possible to see at 2:23:50 that it was not the best placement of ambush. Instant blue on blue. It s not like 90* but 180* ambush.
Those objectives were very difficult and I actually attempted to do the "Tactical Planning" before the mission (That why I was talking about the spot on the map at Obj. 2) of the two named cities but was not brave enought to post it
One thing I would do for this mission differently too - MMG team instead of Bravo 1-2)
MMG - base of fire - long range +450 meters
ASQD - main attacking element used in two teams
BSQD - supporting element used with flexibility
I liked the mission it was relatively simple but the placement of objectives was good; except the ambush which seemed to be a bad place to ambush a convoy but then again maybe we had no choice and I wasn't there for it so who knows.
I think planning went well. No blame on the leadership, it's easy to come up with a perfect plan after the event. I always find a perfect place to attack from when it's too late.
If I have a comment it is that contact reports were a bit sparse and we never seemed to use the armed vics (which is a common problem as we often leave perfectly good MGs behind because they are mounted on a vic when they could be used in the role of an MMG team.)
Oh and I din't mind about the mines. Comms slip-ups are easy to make and we should to complain every time we are surprised by the enemy. I think it keeps things fresh!
... I dont believe that ASQD could effectively cover BSQD ...
Laying on a hill covering a city sounds good, but I think range is neglected too much. Mother , you say >450m. I can say that I had a hard time hitting any moving targets, and if I did. It would unlikely that I'd be able to plant the rest of the shots, which probably would be quite a few shots due to the low damage at that range.
In Denmark we say that the effective range of our 5.56 rifle with optics is 300m. I'm not sure the optic has a role in this, but I think it should have. But to cover someone, you'll have to be within half of the effective range for the specific weapon system (150m). I know this is ArmA and a lot is different, but it just shows how ambitious we are with range compared to the real thing.
Now I think about it, didn't we use some kind of 7.62mm 20 mag? So that should have a farther effective range than my example.
In this sense, Mother suggestion about putting MMG on the hill instead, would make more sense.
Actually I did the planing on picture before the mission was played.
The thing I wrote is feedback to make things better. To see what was done wrong in the "study test" is good thing. It s not intended personal critique but learning by doing and reflexion.
I had no Idea what weapons we will have, so I saw the MMG like good idea for long range engagement.
We had MG3 in every FT. MG3 is 7.62. If used well with AAR binos coorination with AR, like it should be. It could be effective fire. (depends on how much ammo we had) (lets say we would need about 30 rounds for one enemy KIA)
40x EI = 1200 rounds for AAR or MG or combined.
Just for info: (In Arma it s not actually possible to see enemies well behind 600-700m and the bullet drops without binos)
A little eye opener for me for how differently effective ranges are stated.
"Max effective range of MG3 is 1200m" That is about the range danes call effective range for our Browning M2 HMG (.50 cal), all depending on the mount. And our LMG (M60E6, 7.52x51) is set to 600m, while Wikipedia states M60 (base weapon) 1100m effective range. So in short; comparing effective ranges may be completely misleading if it comes from different judges. Apparently :/
Yeah, let's just focus on arma then
"(In Arma it s not actually possible to see enemies well behind 600-700m and the bullet drops without binos)" - We should really do some more machine gunner+spotter action. I love that. Not like enemy spotting, but guiding the bursts.