Leaderboard

Person: Oh, you play ArmA? That sounds so realistic and tactical. Me, an intellectual:

To touch on one of @Capt Harts point a bit, I have seen some of our intel briefs state that we learned of targets and opportunity through captured intel from the field. Although I do feel now, thinking of it, that captured intel felt a bit like we were directed too it, and less like we stumbled upon it. That, combined with the fact that we don't have multiple mission options presented, feels like we are more railroaded in missions then previously. I think having more optional objectives or things we can discover in missions that result in more mission choice and results could help, although I realize that it would be harder to design missions with branching paths like that. I would have added this before but I didn't even think of it until now.

I like the overall storyline, the large scale intel briefs, and fleshed out characters. I also like the use of multiple maps and think its a big step in the right direction to have MSOTs deployed over a larger area all working to further a larger scale tactical objective laid out by higher. However, personally the operations have felt rather lackluster from my perspective. The first mission we did felt purposeful and we could see the tangible impact of that operation within the story. All of our operations after that have felt kinda like filler missions. Actions we take seem to have little to no effect on the overall story, on us, and on the other TFs operations. Even when we were doing things in and around where other TFs were going, or doing things that should have a positive or negative effect on our MSOT specifically. Instead we just keep doing missions that seem like an FTX style "This is fun lets do that" rather than a "This makes tactical sense because of xy and z" and we go from mission to mission and see no impact from our actions whatsoever. It feels like we are just being given SOMETHING to do for the sake of doing it and not because it is actually necessary, applicable to the company level mission tactics, or even makes sense from a Team level perspective. I've had two out of the four operations where I've looked at our assigned objectives, in conjunction with my TC, and then chosen to outright ignore one of them because it makes little to no tactical sense. Also from my perspective the intel reports have seemed rather pointless this deployment. During the last deployment we would find intel, documents, or computers, give it to S-2 where they would analyze and decrypt it, and then we would get actionable intel back from S-2 in our next planning meeting. This deployment we have found all of the above, put them in the intel reports, and specifically asked for decryption analysis e.t.c. and despite all that I have gotten literally nothing back from S-2 in terms of intel. We haven't gotten anything that effects our operations, anything that effects the overall story, we havent even been told what was done with each item. For all intents and purposes it seems to have been put there just for fun and then vanishes into thin air. There doesn't appear to be a purpose in collecting intel because it doesn't have an effect at all. The story is set as it is and it seems to progress despite anything we or any of the other MSOTs do. At least that's what it feels like. So my recommendations are the following: Have all missions planned together with all battle captains. This would allow all missions to make sense with each-other and be equally supportive and progressive of the storyline. For instance if one MSOT destroys a convoy and a platoon of infantry in a town that another MSOT is going to later, then the Battle Captains can modify the force strength and movements of the enemy appropriately. If all missions are planned together then everyone would know what happened and the enemy and the story would be able to be modified accordingly. This also ensures that the missions are of a similar quality across all task forces and that they all can have a tangible impact on the overall storyline. Further this method safeguards against if one Battle Captain is having an off day and cant come up with an interesting mission or something. Then the TF doesn't suffer because it would be planned by all of the battle captains so it would make sense and be appropriately interesting. ALSO missions need to not be a "Lets do this its an interesting idea" but rather a "These are what operations they can do BASED on the story, intel, and current enemy movements" lets have them do that. And it would then be even better if those possible mission choices were available to be chosen by Team HQ or we were at least aware of what they are and why they exist. That was well done during Jungle Hunter at least in TFC. It also means that operation objectives make tactical sense because they are selected BASED on the story, intel, current enemy movement etc. Not "you need to do this becauuuse it'll be a fun mission." If we are not given that ability and allowed to select our own objectives to further the overall mission, then S-2 NEEDS to plan our missions as if they were us, keeping those reasons and tactics in mind so that the missions make sense and align appropriately with the story. Because missions that aren't based on progressive intelligence, the story, enemy movements etc, just aren't fun and are rather pointless. If the story is set the way it is and if there is no potential for serious loss or long term effects or change then what is the point in playing them and going to them? If I know I can vanish for a year, come back and know that it was all fine and it turned out exactly the way everyone thought despite everyone dying or us nuking a town or whatever then whats the point in staying around and going to operations for a year? At that stage all operations become are a "Lets shoot at this thing over here today because its fun to shoot at stuff." And if you're there then you might as well just go play king of the hill with a couple friends because you can at least do that whenever you feel like and you don't have to do any paperwork with it. Additionally, if the intel we gather and the actions we take are actually having an impact on the storyline, then we need to know about it. If it is working that way then it needs to be effectively communicated to to the team in the planning meetings and/or intel briefs. "You did this and it had this impact." "You got this document, it was decrypted and had this impact on us, on the TF, or on somewhere else in the world." "This is what could have happened, but you did x and now y happened." If it's just done inside S-2 and its not explicitly stated to us then, for obvious reasons, we wont know about it, see the benefit, or enjoy it. It has to be explicitly stated to us small-minded crayon chewing marines. If S-2 or company would like further clarification or comment on all this, feel free to PM me or get me on TS to discuss it. Also I feel the need to state my thanks to S-2 for the work they put in and their willingness to take public comment in this manner. I know it looks and probably feels like I'm just bitching up a tree here so I feel the need to say thank you for what you do and thank you for looking to improve.

Hey all I've been playing Cities Skylines again and feel like showing off some pictures. I've been working really hard on my current city, handplacing buildings and most props (some building have included props). It's pretty detailed so far, for some perspective I'm maybe 20 hours into this build and have maybe 8 "complete" city blocks. I'll update periodically when I have new stuff to share, but if anyone wants to see ugly WIP stuff I'll throw that in too. "The comedy clubs and bars of the Riverside neighborhood draw crowds of the rapidly gentrifying populace through the night." "Revitalization projects along East Main Street bring young professionals, along with their startups and avocado toast." "Crowley Circle, a public housing development, is one of the last remaining bastions of the old East Main neighborhood."