Leaderboard

I´ll throw in my two cents here. For me mission making has always been about balancing fun and realism, and when in doubt always lean on the side of fun. I think we can all agree that we wan exciting, action filled missions where we get to do cool SF shit. This however presents us with a problem, namely the "SF shit" We are light infantry equipped for a very specific mission each operation, we are NOT frontline sluggers meant to go toe to toe with a conventional enemy force. Not rarely do our missions end up in a senseless wholesale slaughter of the enemy force and the objective hopefully being one of the things that died /exploded in the middle, usually also with very large numbers of BLUFOR wounded, usually a ratio that should see the mission aborted so hard planned parenthood would name a national holiday after us. So the way I see it the problem is simple: We fight waaaaaaay to large enemy forces for what we are, leading to the mission just becoming a dull grind. Solution S2 Ares operators: Please take a moment to consider if your actions are going to be an exciting/interesting/fun experience for the Task Force, or just a chore. When faced with realism vs fun, always lean on the side of fun. This is ofcourse not to say that all missions should be a breeze, but spawning wave after wave of Russian QRFs because the Task Force got slightly delayed with a casualty or ARMA issue, or whatever is just piling frustration on top of the issues. S2 Mission creators: Smaller, more focused missions. Not every mission needs to be a massive raid on some military grade doom fortress. Personally I would like to see several smaller objectives, maybe somewhat linked to each other via various bits of Intel. "Investigate point A, Intel leads to Point B, Upon completion of B unit is redirected to some ongoing issue that requires attention" the extent of this would be down to the mission creators and ultimately to the Ares Operators. MSOT members of all ranks: You are not the hero in a Michael Bay movie, there will be missions that arent all about shooting people and big explosions, accept it.

Something that I think can definitely be improved upon is the inclusion of the story within each mission. The last few deployments have had stories behind them, but there was never anything specific that would tie the overarching story into the gameplay. If we capture an HVT, I want to know what the purpose behind it was, why it was important to capture him, what information he shares that dictates the next operation, etc. There should be more than just "he said this, we're doing what he says". To somewhat echo Specter, instead of sending us directly to a new objective (and for this scenario, assuming an HVT were to give us such information on this objective), we have to recon it beforehand. This would qualify what the HVT has to offer and could make him a more trusted informant for S-2. Having objectives that we complete (or fail to complete) should have an impact on the current and next operation, while also impacting the story that is being told. This segues the idea of dynamic objectives and not having everything be static. Adding in variables to each operation would make them more interesting. As a complete hypothetical, say the objective was to stop a bomb factory from exporting their goods, but if the team takes too long to arrive at the location, the trucks leave and are now entering civilian populated areas, and now the team is on a time crunch to stop the trucks. Again, complete hypothetical, but I'm hoping the point gets across. Having a flowchart of events that will occur if conditions are met would be more interesting than what we've had in the past. As a final note, it's very easy to predict when certain events will occur. If there is a singular building in the middle of no-where, it almost ALWAYS is an ambush or a trap. There are extremely predictable events that I think could be remedied with curveballs being thrown discreetly. This would likely aid in mission variety and overall enjoyment.

Personally, I agree wholeheartedly with the idea that @Sgt Falconer brought up regarding gathering intel being critical to completing the mission. That would add a challenge to the game on a strategic level, and in some cases non-'mission critical' intel (meaning important, but not necessary to 'win') such as locations of enemy assets that would change the gameplan of the commander/leader during the operation, would add to the mission in terms of enjoyment and realism. And @2ndLt Jones idea of a 'story' is (in my humble opinion) one of the most important aspects of immersion in the MILSIM experience. Having a believable story that is influenced by the actions/inactions of the individuals in the story should be the framework of every deployment, with failures and successes both being possible outcomes and both altering the course of the deployment. Having a 'go to A, clear B, extract at C' operation operation may be fun at times but is liable to becoming repetitive and boring. To be honest, LT stole the words out my mouth and said it better than I ever could. My two cents is a amalgamation of most of the opinions here. To put it bluntly: I want failure to be part of our operations. I want to get bad intel regarding enemy forces/etc and get bogged down in a nasty firefight. I want the possibility of failure to hang over my head every time we step off. In my opinion, it seems that every time we go out (with exceptions) we are 'destined' to win, no matter the cost. If consequences for failure were more dire, they encourage the team to work harder to win, and 'winning' tastes all the more sweet. I can expand on this as well, as to not take too much space. I hope the idea is clear, though.

I'd like to see more recon. Part of our job description is deep recon and we rarely do it. So a few missions where a team slips in to scout AA positions, fuel and ammo dumps, HQ locations etc to mark as targets for artillery, air, or incoming friendly conventional forces would be nice. And I am fucking sick of cartels and pirates. We've done that like 3 times and it has sucked every time. EDIT: Change it up.

Shitpost /ˈshē-ət pəʊst/ Verb shitpost (plural shitposts) Etymology shit + post the constant posting of mildly amusing but usually unfunny memes, videos or other pictures that are completely random or unrelated to any discussions. "He has begun shitposting." "To shitpost." synonyms: trashpost, useless crap, random memes, 1stLt Cole

Personally I would like to see more flanking confrontations. Assisting an MEU with breaking lines by infiltrating a half mile behind the frontlines to disable/destroy prime targets, only to be noticed and have to exfil out of the area under enemy notice would be quite the spectacle. My biggest issue with the last deployment was that there was very little communication between HQ and the battle captain, whereas the battle captain would start the mission planned as one way, and the HQ would plan a different way, and the two would never meet, causing the mission to be defunct.

No one on the ground has any suggestions or requests? I don't believe that at all.

Ground Operations cover such a broad spectrum of activities, and to just say "change it up" is comparable to saying "just change it" while trying to amend a whole Constitution or political manifesto, without specifying which part or what should be changed. Surely there is something good, and most surely there are bad aspects too. Take a look at the other posts as an example, nothing constructive can be taken from a post that simply says "change it up."

Thanks for elaborating and clarifying the change it up statement. Repetitive and recycled missions would've sufficed originally as "change it up" is as broad as the subject itself. The snide comments however are not appreciated. We appreciate all the input so far and will definitely discuss and look at implementing some of your suggestions in the next deployment.

SSgt, that message is as straight forward as possible. From my participating perspective, all I've seen are missions that seem recylcled, overused, and overly extreme. Kill the redundancies and the repitition. It shouldn't be difficult too understand if you've participated in these latest FTX/Operational Cycles. Again : Change It Up.

This is now live in ArmA 3 1.84.

I'm grateful for the cheesey gordita crunch and crunchwrap supreme from Taco Bell.