Coop - Guerilla day 2

Hello, let here your feedback about this mission, how you feel about the operations and even constructively describe negative things about Guerilla day 2 - It will help make more suitable ops.

Poll answers - multiple choices allowed

My mistakes:

  • Found out, that while controlling units, (or switching during that) I can not always hear PLT radio
  • Due to number of injuries I should use the worst skilled faction (or Not place so many AIs)
  • Talking too much to PL
  • WC was adviced by me at 20:50 - it was really bad advise (did not check real time - but it did the work)
  • Forgot mention at briefing EIs with pistols holstered
  • FOB at bad place (I actually did not expected CNTO being overrun)
  • It was too dark - should accelerate time for 5 minutes (problem to evaluate terrain properly and spot properly)
  • Personally feel as the mission was overcrowded with EI (as I expected 16 people on mission / Arma 1.9 update (?))
  • Did not prepared the in game briefing well, had problem to explain
  • Should teleport GM more away from players, so they do not hear me talk with PL
  • Before uploading the mission I forgot change the time back one hour (and had to change it in game to too much dark)
  • Mission was too overwhelming leading to being stressed out
  • Garissoning have to be done in game otherwise AI will run out of houses
  • I was sure by the style of defense and did not consider different solution

Foreword: (this is a feed back of actions made - no bad emotions involved - and it s jus my point of view - does not have to be the right one… never lead PLT or SQD)
Actual defensive position was intentionally choosen by me as very difficult to defend. Nobody said it will be easy one. About 60 EIs in 10 groups were involved in the attack. It could be better but with 4 or 5 KIA it was still good. Attack was in 90* angle and required to watch 270* degrees to spot every group, just retreat cut line was not active in attack.
The defensive situation was prepared like possible overrun and could be win only from higher ground preventing enemy getting danger close - in my mission test.
As Zeus I believed you will have 50% casualities and will use the WC after first objective.
As Zeus I wanted push you on the edge what you can bear.
I did new it will be hard and it was hard by intention, no comfort (some thing are learned by the edge).

As Zeus, it s easy to say from me how it should be done to win, but me being on the ground would be different story :LOL: (I mean I would have just panic attack all way long).

  • Bad position on road (Why I think that ?) - low terrain without any observation anywhere (allowed EI to get danger close)
  • From used entranched position 1 was possible to see only about 140*
  • Position on road did not allowed any observation and was not covered by entranched position enough (obstacles - forest)
  • Enemy attack started 17:00 minutes after loading to game (flares generally said where the enemies are)
  • Distance between entranched map positions was 150m (I believe it was the best choice as there intentionally was not possible hold 270* observation (the forest was the weak spot where enemy HQ (Zeus) had preplaned to get throught)
  • Due to high number of EIs going throught forest was CNTO higher ground flanked into back
  • No enemies were going from the cut off retreat line as draw on the briefing map
  • EI got to the factory position without being seen
  • As group at road got overrun, EI took higher ground on entranched position 2
  • EI proceed for deep envelopment but entranched position 1 repelled attack
  • EI group on entranched postion 2 deserted…

Some things I did not like:

  • briefing - I like to draw on the map as my english skills are not the best - and it s similar to real thing with pointer (which does not work on the briefing screen !) I need calm during the briefing. If the lines helps, pls let me do that.

  • red smokes ignored (I did yet know as Zeus what will happen there later)

  • M60s taken instead of MG 42 (Ok if no ammo)

  • sometimes things go wrong - if enemy fight well - it s difficult but it s situation to solve too - sometimes you get overrun if cornered. Let s say, if we are good, why not try difficulty level up (battle drills).

  • Lee enfields has the best iron sights in all the bolt action rifles (yep, the animation sucks)

  • Lee enfield is more effective than Mosin Nagant on long range (Alt+MMB) (the EI ussually had no body armour)

  • You had 6 mags for pistol with 7 rounds for close combat (except ENG - that + MG 42 were main reason why I did not recommended them).

I forgot to say "recording" but It was actually more nice to see after the mission than the last Friday op record. Nobody did bad - it was difficult mission at beginning and it can stress out. The numbers of enemies eliminated says it all, it was huge number ! :wink: And becouse that, so many injuries (I mean - you will not overshoot 4+ AIs with those rifles)

And forgive me, my accent on briefing - I sound terribly serious even when im not angry or so - it s the basic language of mine - sounds differently :slight_smile: Generally, If I do not have tunnel vision, Im trying to being constructive - it means learning info - which can be wrong too.

Will post some screens later. I had fun like Zeus.

The problem with defense missions is that they do not reflect reality. Needing to defend an open field against hordes of enemies, when you have zero time to properly prep and no real prebuilt defenses, is understandable Needing to do the same on an established position where we would have had prep time? Frustrating. I get that it’s cool to have limited time and see what you can do with it, but I’ve yet to see a defense mission where the defenders have had time to prep properly and it fits the scenario. Especially in this mission it’s strange, since we have an FOB, an established base, with zero defenses.

Even then, leadership meddling caused the defenses to be improper, giving me the impression that we, as engineers, sometimes really do need to ‘listen, agree and then do whatever you think is right’ to make sure we don’t go into suicide tasks just so platoon can have their orders followed.

I get that this is against the chain of command and will cause whoever does this to get warnings and eventual dismissal, but we’re here to have fun, and I’ve seen this happen several times with different platoons, even me: As platoon you don’t know what the hell your specialty team can do and how fast, and you plan according to some arbitrary impression you have. When that is wrong and your specialty teams aren’t allowed any flexibility from the onset, you ruin the game for those people.

Last but not least, we had some problems with the new entrenching tools and the way they function. This took a while to get used to, but once done, we had great entrenched positions and I think the team had fun making them and using them.

There were several friendly fire incidents, for that I apologise, as I didn’t inform my team properly. Additionally, I apologise to platoon for not properly communicating the need to replace the MG42 with the M60 once we ran dry.

The mission picked up considerably for the engineer team after the initial horror show with the defenses. We had a lot of fun, even if some of it was at the cost of Alpha.