Jump to content

What time will be best for you to attend 1st Clash?  

24 members have voted

  1. 1. What time will be best for you to attend 1st Clash?



Recommended Posts

First Clash is done. :cool3:

Thanks to all who played. I saw some great team play.

First I would like to say what First Clash was meant to be. A realistic as possible portrait of the 24 hours the 4CMBG's action against the Soviets Guards as in the book, using the AFV's and options in SB Pro PE, and players for the community over a span of weeks totaling 12 missions, divided into a Recon and then Combat mission, with POSTED rules.

The following is how I saw what happen, how players seen it varies::wink2:

1-The rules were posted, and I admit were changed to suit the play, this said they were discussed, agreed by all CO's and myself before next mission.

2-Comments that the Red side TO&E was not fair was common even though it was post on two sites. I even posted pictures and sent excel sheet.

3- Red side was unable to fight with greater resources against the Leopard1, and TOW equipped M113's.

4-Red side inability to deal with minefields buried, the changed (by both CO's) to unburied, still not good enough.

5- Red side unable to fight facing the sun.

6- Red side unable to fight in low light conditions, when Blue had the same problem.

6- Buffer zone was created to keep both sides on a FLOE was not the 1km, but 800m(aprox) was unacceptable.

7- The 20/40 AFV rules (including three batteries of arty) was a issue for red.

8- Language from Red side was just unacceptable when they did not get there way, both myself and Brun were subject to it in our co-orgs, disappointing .

9- Certain terrain features were a issue from Red, even though Blue had the same terrain to move on.

10- Red had the advantage to pick their entry grids (as per the rules that they did not read), and still had issues with the Leopard1 fire control system that they deemed far superior, instead of choosing terrain that would null the perceived greater Leopard advantage.

11- Red side was unable to send deliverable's ( units/entry grids etc) to CM on time, causing last minute changes, that led to mission issues.

12-Red had issues with minefields, steel beams, etc on map, but outside of play.

13- Red has issues with 50cal killing BTR's.

14- Red had issues with 105's when they had 125mm guns.

15- Thinking that just throwing a greater number of tanks against a player with a proper, well thought out plan will work.

16- Players that have one type of play (VU,single etc), will not do well in a realistic type of play under realistic conditions.

17- Red had issues when the sun lit up the side facing it, and darken the other side of the AFV's.

18- Red had issues with their AI not engaging, when Blue had the same AI.

Just a few, there were many more, some boarding on the ridiculous, I won't bore you.

Over all I enjoyed the training value of campaign development,many lessons learned, but foremost the ability of members to lead and carry out a mission in realistic conditions, sadly there are those who have issues with many real life conditions that they would face if they start to wear a uniform, that being said it's just a sim after all.

When picking the CO's I had players step up, I thank you for your nominations. Having to make the decision on the CO's was my biggest challenge. I was as given advice by V and and other senior players, but I decide to give a few people the chance, so the player I wanted, I held back, for that I am truly sorry, it won't happen again.

The ability to lead is something we all aspire to, many see doing this on a "fair" type of play (TGIF etc) is the making of a good leader, I think not.

For myself, I see a good leader is a person who can take the disadvantage and run with it, when his teammates are not so sure. A leader should have the ability to see the greater picture as well, not the small details, he can hand them off to others, and the check back later to see if it works in the "Big Picture".

I saw such a person in 4CMBG, when I heard such comments like- I have the same conditions, I have less forces, I too have to deal with no map updates, and so on. Not once did I hear those comments from the red side, rather, they saw them as "Their" disadvantage only. This was, as Campaign manager frustrating, but mostly disappointing, for it was I who assigned them Red CO.

I should say here that 4CMBG had issues as well, how ever rather than disagreeing, using fowl language, saying everything is F(&(&'ed up, suggested fixes and compromises, I believe this is how our community should work ( maybe I'm a dreamer).

If I were to pick a winner, I would have to give 4CMBG a thumbs up. They after all the issues, changes, fighting conditions, and compromises they gave, were still willing to fight thous 300+ T-72's

My final comment will be a question I will ask myself for a long time. Why would anyone volunteer for the red side knowing the rules ( and could be modified in a co-org) play and them have issues with said rules, that my friends has me baffled.

Again thanks for all (yes even the Red side) for playing First Clash. I'll try again when I see another group of players who can read rules, understand said rules, and move from east to west with the sun in their eyes. jk:1:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 343
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

AS the rule states. Sides must bring on in the recon phase the units for the combat phase. did you not read this. Yes I changed it for you, but only 1 ptl.My fault for breaking the rules for red. sorry

I do not plan, red, blue plans, I place on map where you state you want what you pick for units, again in the rules. Tell me what where and I place ( in last I just gave a deployment zone to avoid any mistake I may have made), sides plan, am I missing something here?

I am posting here as I saw what happen, I could post names, I did not.

This is not a insult to the players, if you read above I have thanked them, I do so again, how ever the above post is what I and others saw, if you feel that the above post is incorrect tell us how,if you feel insulted, for example you had the sun in your eyes, then I don't know how to respond, maybe others can, after all, we all had the sun in our eyes at some time.jk

Link to post
Share on other sites

The mines and obstacles must be placed within 1K of an ENG that Previously successfully laid the Mine or Obstacle in the R/R phase. Each obstacle was Laid well within the 1K distance. Also it does not help choosing ground that had 700 meters of mines already on it from a previous battle. no attempt to recon the obstacles, with most WP recon stuff in the rear never used. As well as 10 T-72's kept in the rear never used to exploit the initial success of the first 11. One more push like the first from those unused 11 tanks, and WP would most likely have gone well beyond the Autobahn. WP also could have had 4 more Combat units than it did, because of not listening when the C/D talks they had 36 instead of the 40 allowed. I must have sent dozens of PM's to 12Alfa to make damn sure any lack of knowledge of the rules on my part would not hamper my team.

I Also had issues with Incorrect unit amounts and types. I had 6 tubes of 155 instead of the 18 I wanted, and a mortor Inf unit that I had not asked for. As well as units I could not move at all and Had to dive up from the rear.

It was dusk and visibility was poor. The sun played little role in anything. Look at the actual AAR and take a look for yourself face East, face West, not much of a difference in the heavily wooded terrain. You had to squint close to the monitor on both sides to see anything. That is no excuse when there are so many more things that caused the mission to go South for WP.

So many tools at WP's disposal and all NATO gets is drive forward blindly into the enemy until you die then complain about it. It is getting old.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhh...The Emperors New Cloths...

lets ask some real questions here shall we?

1)How long was the first mission in the planning stage and how long was the actual game play? same question for all the following missions in the campaign.I think its something like 8 hours in the joining\planning area vs 20 min or less in actual gameplay in the 3d world???

2)Why did you go through so many red CO's AND an entire red force team(3 CO's was it?) for the red side??? with the last CO quitting and never wanting to play your missions ever again?

3) How is it you went from 25 players to only 6? 2 vs 4?? both of which(red side) were initially blue?? Both of which quit in frustration and disgust.

4)Did you really expect only two players to be an opfor in inferior force(in t-72s no less) attacking AND in the dark???

5)why were recommendations made in the debreifings by the players regarding gameplay ignored?

6)Why the foul language you ask? easy...cause people tend to get angry when talking to an F-ing wall!

You asked were have all the warriors gone??,heres your answer...they went somewhere where they weren't wasting their F-ing time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
and yes it is from that mission I just moved the mines to show that the mines could be put anywhere on the map

The point is, they were not, this is for ease of design,maybe you could design a campaign for us to play.

Nato placed the minefields inside the proper boundaries in the combat phase (that you gave) after one turn in the recon phase, as it states in the rules,I have explained this to you.

If you have had deployed mines in the recon phase, you would have been able to place them within 1 km of said eng AFV just like Nato, where is the issue?

Explain the issue regarding the use that does not comply with the rules.

Just a side note, why is it issue for a commander who has all of his tanks equipped with plows (and I might add here that you failed to request this in the recon phase as stated in the rules) to breach 4 mine fields with 12+ tanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Blindly behind red backs in one recon mission. The last combat phase red units lit up like Christmas trees. This is why the blue AI was able to slew you to target but the red AI could not find your targets what so ever. Even at close ranges. The AAR was studied and the mission in the editor. Also with the amount of units the Campaign maker said one thing and then said another. Just like he said he would add 1KM of battlefield south and change 2 red platoon units to T-72's but failed to.

Is 200m separating forces such a big issue for red, lets ask blue if it was such a issue. Was this a real issue?

Post a pic of red lit up from blues AFV's plz, and Ill see your point, but if the campaign carried on to the end, would not this change for red as the sun would be shining on the Nato's units?

And is the fact that you moved on a forward slope towards blue be a factor with the sun, versus staying hidden in foliage?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ahhh...The Emperors New Cloths...

lets ask some real questions here shall we?

1)How long was the first mission in the planning stage and how long was the actual game play? same question for all the following missions in the campaign.I think its something like 8 hours in the joining\planning area vs 20 min or less in actual gameplay in the 3d world???

2)Why did you go through so many red CO's AND an entire red force team(3 CO's was it?) for the red side??? with the last CO quitting and never wanting to play your missions ever again?

3) How is it you went from 25 players to only 6? 2 vs 4?? both of which(red side) were initially blue?? Both of which quit in frustration and disgust.

4)Did you really expect only two players to be an opfor in inferior force(in t-72s no less) attacking AND in the dark???

5)why were recommendations made in the debriefings by the players regarding game play ignored?

6)Why the foul language you ask? easy...cause people tend to get angry when talking to an F-ing wall!

You asked were have all the warriors gone??,heres your answer...they went somewhere where they weren't wasting their F-ing time.

1-Planing for mission 1A was 1 hour a bit less, I think Nato had some planing done before mission time .Red can comment on any prior planing, but they to had in mission planing to match Blue's.

I believe it was red sides calling the missions, don't think blue called any missions. So you would have to ask the CO for red side in the mission why he felt he needed to call a mission that would have lasted 60-90 minutes, I can't answer that for you.You, I suppose could have asked him to not call it, did you?

2- Well I can only speculate on this,and they can comment. The rules and TO&E's were posted, if they were read is up for discussion. During the missions campaign issues came up for red. If I take a look at them, what I see is that, most if not all were known to them, so why they were brought up as issues, and their inability now to play with said rules is unknown to me, maybe they can post a reply.

3- Why are you asking me what others do, would it not be best to ask them?

4- Did I expect t-72's that out numbered the Leo's ( no TI) in the same visibility without lighted sights (as in the T-72M1) in the dark ( well not so dark that the NVG's would work) ?

Yes why not? Many here in the community have done so before.,

5- These suggestions should have been brought to the CO for the Co-org . I think this is the way not to flood the campaign manger with request, that he then would have to discuss with both CO's. Just abetter way of sending info, and dealing with any agreed changes. Would you have a suggestion to improve on this?

6- Would it not be best to give a list of the issues so that both CO's and my self discuss them in a co-org, rather than using the language to create a atmosphere of frustration?

If one want his point to be taken with any seriousness, then using inappropriate language is not the correct course to take, a calm and though out tone is required, you will learn this over the years, I have with dealing with people from all over the world, try reading some literature on debating or negations, it helped me.

I hope that I have answered all the above to your satisfaction, and in the kindest way possible. I do think that your assessment of where to the warriors is wrong. I think they are here, just hidden.:gun:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Here you go. Point proven, If you cant tell the difference than something's wrong. This is my last posts on this ridicules bull****. PS the last picture is what you would see if you are facing east.

Your right!!

I'm off to the doc, what I'm seeing is normal battlefield conditions under the light for that time of day, for that time of year, as posted in the rules for a 24 hour campaign , that by default will span from 12:00 hour to the next 12:00 hour.

Did anyone else read this differently, or would more details on what, or how a 24hour campaign should have been posted by myself in the post(s) regarding the rules and concept?:confused:I can do better.

Something is wrong with my eyes:sad2:

Link to post
Share on other sites
First Clash is done. :cool3:

Thanks to all who played. I saw some great team play.

First I would like to say what First Clash was meant to be. A realistic as possible portrait of the 24 hours the 4CMBG's action against the Soviets Guards as in the book, using the AFV's and options in SB Pro PE, and players for the community over a span of weeks totaling 12 missions, divided into a Recon and then Combat mission, with POSTED rules.

The following is how I saw what happen, how players seen it varies::wink2:

1-The rules were posted, and I admit were changed to suit the play, this said they were discussed, agreed by all CO's and myself before next mission.

2-Comments that the Red side TO&E was not fair was common even though it was post on two sites. I even posted pictures and sent excel sheet.

3- Red side was unable to fight with greater resources against the Leopard1, and TOW equipped M113's.

4-Red side inability to deal with minefields buried, the changed (by both CO's) to unburied, still not good enough.

5- Red side unable to fight facing the sun.

6- Red side unable to fight in low light conditions, when Blue had the same problem.

6- Buffer zone was created to keep both sides on a FLOE was not the 1km, but 800m(aprox) was unacceptable.

7- The 20/40 AFV rules (including three batteries of arty) was a issue for red.

8- Language from Red side was just unacceptable when they did not get there way, both myself and Brun were subject to it in our co-orgs, disappointing .

9- Certain terrain features were a issue from Red, even though Blue had the same terrain to move on.

10- Red had the advantage to pick their entry grids (as per the rules that they did not read), and still had issues with the Leopard1 fire control system that they deemed far superior, instead of choosing terrain that would null the perceived greater Leopard advantage.

11- Red side was unable to send deliverable's ( units/entry grids etc) to CM on time, causing last minute changes, that led to mission issues.

12-Red had issues with minefields, steel beams, etc on map, but outside of play.

13- Red has issues with 50cal killing BTR's.

14- Red had issues with 105's when they had 125mm guns.

15- Thinking that just throwing a greater number of tanks against a player with a proper, well thought out plan will work.

16- Players that have one type of play (VU,single etc), will not do well in a realistic type of play under realistic conditions.

17- Red had issues when the sun lit up the side facing it, and darken the other side of the AFV's.

18- Red had issues with their AI not engaging, when Blue had the same AI.

Just a few, there were many more, some boarding on the ridiculous, I won't bore you.

Over all I enjoyed the training value of campaign development,many lessons learned, but foremost the ability of members to lead and carry out a mission in realistic conditions, sadly there are those who have issues with many real life conditions that they would face if they start to wear a uniform, that being said it's just a sim after all.

When picking the CO's I had players step up, I thank you for your nominations. Having to make the decision on the CO's was my biggest challenge. I was as given advice by V and and other senior players, but I decide to give a few people the chance, so the player I wanted, I held back, for that I am truly sorry, it won't happen again.

The ability to lead is something we all aspire to, many see doing this on a "fair" type of play (TGIF etc) is the making of a good leader, I think not.

For myself, I see a good leader is a person who can take the disadvantage and run with it, when his teammates are not so sure. A leader should have the ability to see the greater picture as well, not the small details, he can hand them off to others, and the check back later to see if it works in the "Big Picture".

I saw such a person in 4CMBG, when I heard such comments like- I have the same conditions, I have less forces, I too have to deal with no map updates, and so on. Not once did I hear those comments from the red side, rather, they saw them as "Their" disadvantage only. This was, as Campaign manager frustrating, but mostly disappointing, for it was I who assigned them Red CO.

I should say here that 4CMBG had issues as well, how ever rather than disagreeing, using fowl language, saying everything is F(&(&'ed up, suggested fixes and compromises, I believe this is how our community should work ( maybe I'm a dreamer).

If I were to pick a winner, I would have to give 4CMBG a thumbs up. They after all the issues, changes, fighting conditions, and compromises they gave, were still willing to fight thous 300+ T-72's

My final comment will be a question I will ask myself for a long time. Why would anyone volunteer for the red side knowing the rules ( and could be modified in a co-org) play and them have issues with said rules, that my friends has me baffled.

Again thanks for all (yes even the Red side) for playing First Clash. I'll try again when I see another group of players who can read rules, understand said rules, and move from east to west with the sun in their eyes. jk:1:

I will only comment on those things that I was privy to/experienced as the guy who COed two of the missions and did the planning for one of them.

4. Buried mines were an issue because

1. We could not spot them without running a vehicle into them

2. When they were "spotted" we could not identify the extent of them as a result of asymmetric map updates, identifying the extent of them would mean losing more vehicles. Infantry were useless in spotting because of the map update issue.

7. When I was commanding both sides had 20 AFVs that were actual combat elements. I stated this was not enough combat power for an attacker facing mines to you and got no change in the matter.

I understand what your intent was, that each battle would be a disaster for red, at the end of which red would possibly obtain a victory as a result of the total results. However this should have been obvious that this would be a major problem for at the least the playability of the campaign for red, expecting such things to last as they were designed for an hour or more was pure folly.

8. The only time I saw this was when CO 1 was commanding, when he realized that the campaign was becoming something he hadn't expected it to. For me I was always civil with you, despite my issues with how the campaign was designed. I did receive a pissy PM from Brun, which I replied to as civilly as I could.

The only time I used "foul" language with 12A was when I sent him a message as regards me dropping out, I told him I sent him that at the time I did because I didn't want things to turn into a ratfuck for him looking for a new CO. I know not what the conversations with Assassin were like, or the negotiations involving Dark were, but only what I experienced myself.

10. Red could pick where they wished to go, true. However that meant little as a result of the ratios involved. The area I picked was for the purpose of RED defending as a result of an expected disparity in combat power. As I said in this very thread, the T-72 is not equal to the Leopard 1 as a result of the ammunition used by both sides, the average ranges involved and the fact that the Leopard is faster in terms of engagement speed and in terms of rate of fire.

11. The week after CO 1 dropped out it became apparent that the duty was dropped in my lap. I sent the information as regards the sector and AFVs used via email, I got a reply as regards clarifying the interdiction force and that was the last email I had gotten. The expectation was that all was fine in light of the statement that we would automatically get arty, etc. We still got it, short supply, but that didn't matter anyway as a result of the issues of the issue of force ratios anyway.

13. The enemy 113s could kill our wheeled AFVs out to 1+k from any aspect, we could only kill them at 500m or less from the side. Not an issue in itself, but it goes back to the issue with force ratios. This was coupled with the fact that Blue had robotic turrets which were extremely difficult to spot and destroy. Again, perhaps not an issue in itself, but with the force ratios of 1:1 it was impossible.

15. No one had an issue with this. The issue was that with the 1:1 ratio and map size and enemy mines it was impossible to mass that against enemy weakness. There was no way to engage in maskirovka, there was no or little way bypass strong points backed up by enemy tanks or thermal equipped ATGMs. Each battle becomes a frontal attack, which ends up as a disaster for red.

16. Red's first CO was the Red CO in Red Tide, he was successful. I was his XO in that and participated in planning and analysis of enemy intent. Assassin is also an experienced CO and multiplayer guy. These would imply to me that there is another problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the feed back TH, yes you keep your kool through the limited time played, and were effective in most regards.

I find it difficult, and your case being the exception that the red side players did not know the "big picture". After the post on the site here, and then in wiki, I would have thought that most would grasp the concept of the campaign set in the time, under the conditions and forces available.

After looking at the overall units on both sides, the time lines and the map, I played tested the red and blue side a few times. I felt that blue as in the last version of First Clash would not hold, and as in the book would require a intervention (AH-64's in the book) to hold the AO.

So it comes as a surprise that the red side was unable to develop a campaign plan vs a mission plan to get to the west side of the map as was done last time with fewer options in AFV/support, etc.

I do not blame any CO on red, sorry if I'm coming off that way. As you stated they all have many missions under their belt as CO's.

I am thinking it's the concept of the real world injected into the Sim that is causing a planning issue. I mean that, we rarely play real-time missions, and in my other post, everything has to be balanced and fair, this was not one of those. I think that people were intrigued by the idea, put of by the reality on the ground in the 80's. Most of the issues were never seen before, so it came as a rude awaking to most, even Blue side,no TI,no map updates!!.

I am thinking this is a wake up call for those interested in real time missions, balanced missions seen like WOT's now.

Again Thanks for the input TH

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as the low turnout for Tues night. Most NATO members are from Germany, Spain, Sweden, Aussie land with the time differences and such. The battle Had to be done as soon as possible to leave time to prepare for the next one, low turn out or not. I Can assure you had the time slot been more Euro friendly My loyal contingent of players from around the world would have joined. Although It was getting difficult to try and answer their questions about WP's irrational behavior, and constant quitting.

What was WP's excuse to have a low turnout? Was it the campaign, or the WP "Leadership". I can only imagine the amount of complaining going on over there. Would certainly be enough to drive Me away in disgust. I would certainly never allow any of that garbage on my team. There was one complainer on NATO for a while. Went on an on about how it is just impossible to operate without map updates. He even got angry about it. This person Naturally gravitated to the leadership style on the WP.

Lashing out and finding every little excuse possible to make up for piss poor planning, and execution. "I can't do this the sun is in my eyes" Give me break. If I cried like a bi#$% for every little thing, and doomed My teammates with lame duck plans, No one worth having would want to be on My side. People lash out when they find themselves in situations beyond their capability. It is a natural reflex.

To my Loyal NATO members I am sorry for Your time having been wasted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So you guys want to switch sides? :)

Well that is a option, and after some time to cool off, we may take you up on that, if the same rules are used with the same players. But this will be after the season and after some discussions.

A few people would of course not be invited to play after their issues came to light.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who want to know what I did to keep that campaign alive as per reds requests just PM me, I'll tell you exactly how I tried to help that side as much as possible, by not favoring blue:cool3:.

You can then see the facts as they happened.:luxhello:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Never said You had a problem with map updates.

I don't recall asking for any particular changes to be made. Other than asking 12Alfa to up the WP to 40 units on the Combat Phase. I sat back and agreed to the multitude of changes asked for by WP commanders current, and past.

The only favor I got from 12Alfa was the opportunity to Co the 4CMBG, and list of rules, and a spreadsheet of my available units. What more do you need?

The possibility of a former NATO member Coing red at a future incarnation of this does exist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I almost forgot to tank our German server staff, THANK YOU.

And your help when that big bad soviet bear crashed through your eastern door, and caught the yanks watching NASCAR, then tried to chase them right into a group of crazy Canadians drinking maple syrup straight from a bottle, while watching Hockey night In Canada, you skills were seen from both sides.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Over the next few days I will be asking for some input in the form of a poll(s) on the campaign. This data/info will complete my project.

When I was in the design stage, along side of this was a matrix for effects, now I wish to collect some data/info of the "measure of effects" using the poll method as part of my project called "FC The Campaign". Some of you may or may not read about it.:wink2:

I planned from the start 3 polls to capture data for the following:

1-So I can ,or others design better campaigns:cool3:

2-People wanting to voice their opinion anonymously

3-Gauge the community campaign expectations

4-Best tank polls are boring, this will be fun,fun,fun:luxhello::luxhello:

The first poll is for all, players and non-players, on campaign design in general.

The second and third will be for both sides, red side will go first in the second poll due to me favoring Blue. Last poll therefore will be the blue side.

The questions have been imputed from 3 months ago, some need adjusting due to the unexpected shortness, still valid, but in need of fine tuning.

I will request comments to be posted later when we all can take a look at the data, the polls will be completed before the fat man slides down your chimney.

For some here, whether you been naughty or nice will come into play I would think:wink2:. Kidding!!!

This is by a voluntary basis, your support, and opions I value, and am truly appreciative of the kind gesture.:luxhello:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cutting out extraneous personality issues, it seems to me that the problem here was simply a difference of opinion as to whether Red had any chance whatsoever of 'losing every battle yet winning the war' - or not. The campaign designer and the Blue C.O clearly thought they had. In SVU (intended to be the core element for Red) we discussed this very carefully and decided we hadn't.

However, this was to be SVU's first public outing after many months of training with Soviet equipment and Soviet Doctrine, and we were raring to go. The first two sessions with two different C.Os reinforced our original opinion and we all felt that several weeks of 'Attack, die, rinse and repeat' with no realistic chance of eventual victory was not going to be fun. So we withdrew as a unit. This decision was taken very reluctantly as we knew it would result in accusations of LMF.

For the third session, a very experienced non-SVU player took over the job of Red C.O, and came to the same conclusion. Which surely must say something?

IMHO, what has been portrayed as incessant whinging from Red about force ratios, scenario design, etc, were actually attempts to have things changed just enough for Red players to feel that they had more than zero chance of success in the campaign overall.

But at this late stage, positions on both sides have become entrenched and most unlikely to change, so further discussion would seem pointless.

Just my 2p.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, fair assignment.:luxhello:

During some play testing with the CAD on wed nights we found with the AI scripted red, and Nato in to defensive positions,we would not hold.

It was only after playing the same mission 3-4 times did Nato start to not loose 1 of 4 troops within 30 mins .

So the question is, is the AI in punching past Nato not concerned about loosing units vs a human CO a factor?:confused:

I don't think my scripting abilities in mission design is better than the 3 red CO's.:wink2:

Well i was surprised when some of the red players came to your conclusion that they could not win after reading the concept and joining. I had hoped for the reverse to avoid all of the issues.

I was hoping when I posted the rules/concept, that they would be read, and then players/Vu would decide if they felt they could play under the post on the campaign, as it turns out I feel most did not, or some one(s) they were either convinced they could not, or there assessment was wrong after signing up.

To go from a giddy delight over the campaign to completely out, suggest there are other factors in play here.

When players come forward to explain, other then what we see, i am not (as well as others) ,on what happened is based on concept/rules or personalities I will really not know what happened.

Simply put, after reading what I posted, to join with high moral, then quit seems rather odd.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...