Hot LZs & well-trained VCs: Helos, RPGs & doorguns

[Draakon]

I don't know where exactly they landed but I'd bet (and it was said) the Ins was only there via gaming, ie "This is where they always land, so send some dudes out there." Gaming to find the LZ then claiming "Well it's a real life threat, if you don't want it blown up don't land there" is a bit ridiculous.

This instance wasn't gaming. Well, you really can't say it was gaming, because Ebasses orders for bravo squad around were to just be on the lookout. He might have but them there on purpose, knowing it was a overused LZ, but he might had not. Nothing on the briefing pointed towards it. Heck, even half of bravo didn't even look down the LZ until the chopper came in.

It's also really hard to detect/know if metagameing is involved. For example, I have seen some repeated plans and they have gone better, but the CO who is repeating the plan didn't play when the first version of the plan was used. Also is a consideration of each players knowledge of the terrain. At this point, pretty much everyone almost knows Takistan and Chernarus at the back of their head. In fact, CompundIt is a case of terrain knowledge. The blufor CO might had ordered the LZ there because of the terrain advantage from the AO. Ebass however didn't plan bravos movement there based on a possible LZ location there because the terrain might give cover. He moved his troops around based on the advantage he can get towards the AO from what the terrain can provide.

The whole discussion seems to sparked around the fact what happened on that Compundit mission. I'd say what happened to the chopper was part of the game. It's as big threat as is a whole compound booby trapped by IED and then a whole squad getting blown up. So one faction got outmaneuvered by another faction.

[Headspace]

It has been my experience that drawing a clear line between metagaming and good-faith gaming is impossible in all but the most egregious of cases (which ultimately boil down to intentionally not following the rules, or cheating). Missing a seemingly minor detail in the briefing, doing something in good faith that others interpret as cheesing it, or misunderstanding the mission designer's intent have all been root causes of situations where accusations of "gaming it" have been flung.

FA isn't about a culture of blame. It is very easy to point fingers at people and chew each other out--it's the most intellectually lazy course of action, in fact. Taking a look at how missions and mission briefings are designed is a more productive measure. If the mission creator can define, through successive testing, what the parameters of play should be, then it will be easier to lay those guidelines out to the 50 or so people playing the mission won't be confused.

Personally, I think that accusing someone of "gaming it up" because you lost (I am not saying that is what happened in this case) is at best making a pointless worst-case assumption about the character of who you're playing with, and at worst, sour grapes. I don't want to see that kind of thing start happening here.

[zitron]

Why so against using transport helos as gunships? Give the defender HMG some KORDs, all of a sudden your "gunship" isn't so OP any more.

If you are on the ground and you get killed by a Chinook, or if you helo gets hit by a RPG, what's the big deal, shit happens.

[Ferrard Carson]

I feel as though we’re getting lost in minutia here.

In each mission, the mission-maker gives everyone certain tools, and the less limits we have to put on those tools beyond the mission-maker's choice, the better.

I’m of the opinion that we should use every asset we’re given to the utmost that the mission-maker allows us. If the mission-maker wants to allow dedicated air support, then they include crewmen for the choppers. If the mission-maker doesn’t want RPGs used against the choppers or chopper guns used against the infantry, then they can simply remove the RPGs from the infantry loadout or the ammo from the mounted guns. If the mission-maker doesn’t want an asset to be an “I-win” button, then they include a special ROE that says “Don’t use explosives against built-up areas” or something to that effect.

Yes, this would put a lot of burden on the mission-makers to balance their helicopter missions carefully. Yes, this would put a lot of burden on COs and pilots to actually plot out LZs and approaches. However, helping mission-makers balance their missions or COs and pilots plan their use of assets is a hell of a lot easier and better than somewhat arbitrarily saying, "No, you can't shoot the enemy who is right in front of you."

~ Ferrard

[Black Mamba]

I tend to find this thread is going wrong, and I don't see why we focus on that particular event. For the sake of argument, though, I don't think we can just say "let things be".
Once again, there are two types of missions: those that exist, and those that will.
Now that the issue has been raised, it would be very negligent from a mission-maker not to take it into account when designing a new mission.
But. There's a but. Those that already exist don't always cater for that issue. Let's take Sakheola. The mission maker gives you a chinook with full ammo. If we stick to what you just said, Ferrard, Blufor just has to level the entire town from the beginning. That doesn't make no sense. From there, two options: either you ban the mission from the playlist until it's revised (which is not what I would do), or you settle on a gentlemen's agreement. (I could even argue that Blufor could win CompoundIt without even setting foot on the ground)

I find, and I repeat myself, that allowing the helicopters to defend themselves during insertion is a necessity, for fairness, enjoyment and the cinematics that could come with it. On the other hand, if the helicopter is obviously too much of a threat to the balance of the mission, establishing more restrictive ROEs than what is specified in the briefing is also a necessity. At least until somebody takes time to modify and adapt the mission to counterbalance that.

[Wilson]

The whole discussion seems to sparked around the fact what happened on that Compundit mission. I'd say what happened to the chopper was part of the game. It's as big threat as is a whole compound booby trapped by IED and then a whole squad getting blown up. So one faction got outmaneuvered by another faction.

Being outmaneuvoured would have to rely on the odds being fairly even. It was said not to use the chopper guns, which meant for the entire mission, to us anyways. The fact it meant something different to other people surely backs up the argument that these things need to be outlined to avoid threads like this?

[fer]

I don't see why we focus on that particular event.

This thread isn't about one run-through of CompoundIt, so let's try and stay focused on the general issues outlined in the OP, comrades. And as ever, please think hard before you press that submit button - it's great to see a variety of views, but let's be careful not to see our discussion stray from being constructive and friendly, please.

[Macaco]

I don't know why you people are referring to meta-gaming, if you review my post I said no such thing.cough

The whole discussion seems to sparked around the fact what happened on that Compundit mission. I'd say what happened to the chopper was part of the game. It's as big threat as is a whole compound booby trapped by IED and then a whole squad getting blown up. So one faction got outmaneuvered by another faction.

Ok then when the Chinook flies over guns blazing and you lose without even getting a shot at, that also needs to be "part of the game." You where outmaneuvered by a bullet. At least the door gunner had fun though right?

Personally, I think that accusing someone of "gaming it up" because you lost (I am not saying that is what happened in this case) is at best making a pointless worst-case assumption about the character of who you're playing with, and at worst, sour grapes. I don't want to see that kind of thing start happening here.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything(not intentionally) and the chinook destruction had nothing to do with my death or loss in that missoin. As I've said elsewhere meta-gaming was a minor point that I got carried away with. I was more annoyed at the "All's fair in war" aspect of RPGing the chopper and calling it okie dokie. You have ruined the mission for a chinook full of people that had no defenses, and are fine with that. It gets back to an issue that I have seen come up a lot of 1 persons fun vs many peoples fun.

In each mission, the mission-maker gives everyone certain tools, and the less limits we have to put on those tools beyond the mission-maker's choice, the better.

I absolutely, positively, 100% agree with you there. However I've lost count of the times we have not slotted things that the mission-maker has given us(CAS, snipers, mortards, etc etc) because it's not how we do things here, or not fun for everyone. I would like to see a thread where all the mission makers get together and brainstorm about better ways to balance/do CAS in missions so that we can actually use them more. In fact I'm going to go make that thread now. here

[Draakon]

Ok then when the Chinook flies over guns blazing and you lose without even getting a shot at, that also needs to be "part of the game." You where outmaneuvered by a bullet. At least the door gunner had fun though right?

How to stop a bullet? You stay behind cover. How to not get shot at? You stay hidden. This rule does not apply to only bullets coming from choppers, but from ground forces as well.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything(not intentionally) and the chinook destruction had nothing to do with my death or loss in that missoin. As I've said elsewhere meta-gaming was a minor point that I got carried away with. I was more annoyed at the "All's fair in war" aspect of RPGing the chopper and calling it okie dokie. You have ruined the mission for a chinook full of people that had no defenses, and are fine with that. It gets back to an issue that I have seen come up a lot of 1 persons fun vs many peoples fun.

There have been so many opportunities personally where I alone could had cocked up the entire enemy team. Either I have flanked from behind and they didn't watch behind them or after the chopper goes away I put down a grenade or two and then shoot a magazine or two.

[Macaco]

How to stop a bullet? You stay behind cover. How to not get shot at? You stay hidden. This rule does not apply to only bullets coming from choppers, but from ground forces as well.

There have been so many opportunities personally where I alone could had cocked up the entire enemy team. Either I have flanked from behind and they didn't watch behind them or after the chopper goes away I put down a grenade or two and then shoot a magazine or two.

That's the same thoughts I have about it. But it's not gonna help you much considering it can just circle and essentially make everyone in an area too scared to come out and do anything at risk of being shot.

As soon as they have their guns at the ready then they are fair game and it's their own fault for not having 360 security. But in a chinook they don't have their guns ready.

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.