In hindsight, asking the birds not to use their guns (at least on landings) without considering the possibility of defenders using RPGs was a mistake on my part as the host.Macaco wrote:I think if birds where allowed to shoot on landings (or some other solution) about 90% of this conversation would be moot as most of this is just potential problems that could arise in the future as things stand now.
Hot LZs & well-trained VCs: Helos, RPGs & doorguns
Re: Hot LZs & well-trained VCs: Helos, RPGs & doorguns
Re: Hot LZs & well-trained VCs: Helos, RPGs & doorguns
Well wow this is a silly thing.
So helo gets shot up by a RPG?
Tough lucky maybe the CO should have planned a father away LZ or otherwise be understood to not land right in-front of the enemy.
Putting silly host rules about "Not shooting door guns" or "no rpgs at helos" is just beyond silly.
Its up to the mission maker to decide what tools he wants to give a team and not a general conclusion on every instance.
So helo gets shot up by a RPG?
Tough lucky maybe the CO should have planned a father away LZ or otherwise be understood to not land right in-front of the enemy.
Putting silly host rules about "Not shooting door guns" or "no rpgs at helos" is just beyond silly.
Its up to the mission maker to decide what tools he wants to give a team and not a general conclusion on every instance.
Re: Hot LZs & well-trained VCs: Helos, RPGs & doorguns
If I can add my 5 cents here.
Just on that case everyone seems to be talking about Cacheola (or whatever its called), I really can't believe its so much of an issue. Just to be clear my intent was NOT to guess the landing area and shoot the choppers, I'd kind of like here to talk about adversarial missions in general and the command of them particularly on the defensive side.
A lot of missions I play as a grunt in adversarials on the defending side, the instruction boils down to "Get into lots of buildings, and wait to shoot things." Not only do I find this a very very boring way to play (and why I'd personally advocate far more adversarial battles taking place over open terrain or Cherna forests, rather than attack/defend villages) but I find its a very very good way to lose a defensive battle because all round visability from Arma's houses is usually crap. It not only allows your adversaries almost complete freedom of movement to flank you, but your positions become really quite easy to spot as you duck in and out of windows, the movement is obvious and all the enemy needs to do is lay down behind a rock and wait for you to stick your head out a window and bam............ Anyway
The point of my command of that mission was to spread all my fireteams AROUND the village (which is how I command most defend adversarials) because that allows you excellent manouvreability, but it also allows you to pick decent cover where any approach to said cover is over open ground. (On that particular village see the approaches to the South-East or the West for good examples, lots of rocks but those approaches to the rocks are fairly open) I really didn't expect the choppers to land right on top of my men. But if they did I'm sure as hell gonna let them fire on them, the enemy had just provided us with an incredible opportunity to take them all out.
With regard to "gaming it" two things, firstly whether you believe me or not I really didn't intent to catch the chopper LZ. Secondly, if I'm gaming it surely Blufor was too? Because their metagame expectations of a attack/defend adversarial was for me to bottle up all my forces in the village, so they thought they'd have no problem landing 300 metres from the objective.
But more importantly than ALL of that. You've got the choppers to give you mobility. You can fly 150 miles an hour. We start on the village on foot, your choppers can literally land anywhere. If your choppers are landing within a decent RPG shot of 200 metres from our starting position then either A) You're doing it wrong and got punished or B) You took a huge tactical risk and got punished for it.
The whole point of adversarials especially in Arma is not to outshoot your opponent with twitch skills CS style, but to out-think your opponent. Work out where he'll be and put forces on his flank to cut him to bits.
Erm anyway, I say, always allow RPGs to shoot at choppers and usually allow door guns. I mean if we don't allow either then why are we even using choppers in adversarials? It would be far easier (and quicker) to just let the whole Blufor team use a teleport group action and houserule it to be at least 300 metres outside the AO or something.
Just on that case everyone seems to be talking about Cacheola (or whatever its called), I really can't believe its so much of an issue. Just to be clear my intent was NOT to guess the landing area and shoot the choppers, I'd kind of like here to talk about adversarial missions in general and the command of them particularly on the defensive side.
A lot of missions I play as a grunt in adversarials on the defending side, the instruction boils down to "Get into lots of buildings, and wait to shoot things." Not only do I find this a very very boring way to play (and why I'd personally advocate far more adversarial battles taking place over open terrain or Cherna forests, rather than attack/defend villages) but I find its a very very good way to lose a defensive battle because all round visability from Arma's houses is usually crap. It not only allows your adversaries almost complete freedom of movement to flank you, but your positions become really quite easy to spot as you duck in and out of windows, the movement is obvious and all the enemy needs to do is lay down behind a rock and wait for you to stick your head out a window and bam............ Anyway
The point of my command of that mission was to spread all my fireteams AROUND the village (which is how I command most defend adversarials) because that allows you excellent manouvreability, but it also allows you to pick decent cover where any approach to said cover is over open ground. (On that particular village see the approaches to the South-East or the West for good examples, lots of rocks but those approaches to the rocks are fairly open) I really didn't expect the choppers to land right on top of my men. But if they did I'm sure as hell gonna let them fire on them, the enemy had just provided us with an incredible opportunity to take them all out.
With regard to "gaming it" two things, firstly whether you believe me or not I really didn't intent to catch the chopper LZ. Secondly, if I'm gaming it surely Blufor was too? Because their metagame expectations of a attack/defend adversarial was for me to bottle up all my forces in the village, so they thought they'd have no problem landing 300 metres from the objective.
But more importantly than ALL of that. You've got the choppers to give you mobility. You can fly 150 miles an hour. We start on the village on foot, your choppers can literally land anywhere. If your choppers are landing within a decent RPG shot of 200 metres from our starting position then either A) You're doing it wrong and got punished or B) You took a huge tactical risk and got punished for it.
The whole point of adversarials especially in Arma is not to outshoot your opponent with twitch skills CS style, but to out-think your opponent. Work out where he'll be and put forces on his flank to cut him to bits.
Erm anyway, I say, always allow RPGs to shoot at choppers and usually allow door guns. I mean if we don't allow either then why are we even using choppers in adversarials? It would be far easier (and quicker) to just let the whole Blufor team use a teleport group action and houserule it to be at least 300 metres outside the AO or something.
-
Terminal Boy
- Posts: 124
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2013 4:14 pm
- Location: London
Re: Hot LZs & well-trained VCs: Helos, RPGs & doorguns
Having artificial RoE for such situations causes 2 problems that I can see:
- Reduces the player's immersion in the mission as no door gunner or infantryman is going to miss the chance to inflict heavy losses on the enemy.
- Doesn't punish the attacking CO/DC for making tactically ruinous decisions.
If mission makers really don't want lumbering transport helis shot down, they should implement "no- fly" zones by placing AI crewed ZSUs, HMGs or IFVs on the high ground around the Objective, forcing the attacking CO to chose LZ/s well outside the range of these AAA threats.
If the CO still sends Mi-8s etc. into such an area, the only have themselves to blame when their entire assault force is dead in the first 5 minutes of the mission.
- Reduces the player's immersion in the mission as no door gunner or infantryman is going to miss the chance to inflict heavy losses on the enemy.
- Doesn't punish the attacking CO/DC for making tactically ruinous decisions.
If mission makers really don't want lumbering transport helis shot down, they should implement "no- fly" zones by placing AI crewed ZSUs, HMGs or IFVs on the high ground around the Objective, forcing the attacking CO to chose LZ/s well outside the range of these AAA threats.
If the CO still sends Mi-8s etc. into such an area, the only have themselves to blame when their entire assault force is dead in the first 5 minutes of the mission.
Re: Hot LZs & well-trained VCs: Helos, RPGs & doorguns
Oops. Forgot to lock'n'post: this discussion continues here, comrades.