Capt (Ret) Bazarnicki

I joke.

Operation Desert Dragon Phase 2 09-19 and 10-19 Video highlights: I get eaten by a building at 15:55, Hawkins then proceeds to call out to me like a forlorn lover but doesn't actually check on me. Falconer tries to kill us all with his driving at 21:30. Aviation makes a joke after crashing a F-35 into a hangar at 24:20. Falconer again displays his now Moraven-esque driving abilities at 34:35. I have a great time with my 249 at 39:45. Carrendar has the softest crash ever at 47:30.

When you can't decide between Army and Marine Corp 1LT + 1stLt = 1stLT

There's a party and Whelan was invited.

Same. I was all like "oh we faked an ABC news url, neat"...

It's so shiny.

Awww yisss

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 haven't had much issue with the deployment (storyline, mission planning) itself personally. The only feedback I've heard from my team so far was more related to map choice and utilization than anything else, those being some strong dislike for some of the maps, and the amount of maps being too high. (11 maps downloaded at once, we can't use all of those at the same time at all. Having to download and run all of them basically all deployment seems... not optimal.) So I think finding more balance between map diversity (which we all want) and map utilization would be nice. There should be a mid point between not having to download 11 maps at once, but not having to download a new map every other week either. Trying to keep this in mind when developing a storyline might be the way to go moving forwards.

I wasn't disagreeing. Just giving some feedback as someone who has worked in the web field professionally, since other people seemed to have issues with it. I was definitely nit-picking on purpose.

This is probably due to how they might have their hosting set up - there are places that can host wordpress for you, with addon support and all of that, but it would only host wordpress. They almost all let you use your own domain. But I don't think many of them would also host a forum for you. And they probably don't want to go to the effort of paying for a forum host as well, so they go for a free one. Free forum hosts generally don't let you use your own domain. This is nowhere near cluttered. Everything is presented with clear separation, you can easily make out sections of content. A main header image, a single Youtube video, a 3 card info section ("important notes"), and a very web standard 2-1 main/side bar layout for news posts. The only real criticisms I would have with this is that the news is so far down on the main page that its pretty hidden under the fold, and there is no clear Call to Action anywhere near the top when a user first loads a page. They have a tiny recruitment link in the nav, which is fine, but it blends in with the other links. There is no "Join Now" or anything like that at first glace. The general idea is that average people will spend barely any time on any one page, so you have to have something prominent, obviously stands out, calls on the user to take an action, and that should never have to be scrolled down to be seen (but that's more marketing type stuff the design specifically I guess). Aside from that, the pitch black to stark white is a huge contrast. While I don't hate it, i think they could play with more grey colors and make a bit easier on the eyes. Over all, not a bad website, and I've seen way worse. Its pretty easy to get a decent design with Wordpress though since it has such a wide user base, and tons of themes.

那些肮脏的美国人。 他们不记得我们的流氓将军吗？ 这显然是俄罗斯人的伎俩。

It isn't as cut and dry as "not enough to shoot at, not enough action, failing is not fun" - all of those statements are not black and white, there is tons of grey area. Finding the line in those is what we have to do. Failing a mission due to 100 AI swarming you at once can be very not fun, but failing due to being worn down through multiple engagements can be fun. Failing due to incorrect intel, the target escaping, enemy reinforcements push us off of an objective, etc - these are all fun ways to fail. I think this might be more of the issue with people not wanting to fail - failure always seemed to be previous a lot of enemies just overwhelmed or shot us enough to make us get frustrated. While i won't discount that being a viable way to fail, when that's all you see, either mission complete or total wipe, it gets... old and stale. And that makes it not fun. As for the "not enough to shoot at, not enough action" - I do agree with that at some level. We are here to do Milsim, but in the end we need to all realize that the actual part of milsim we want is the operations, stepping outside the wire, doing things. Something at some level has to happen otherwise its a waste of time, hence why we don't have FTXs or trainings where we all get together and clean our guns, do PT, etc. With that in mind, action doesn't have to be "firing guns until we run out of ammo or targets." I'd say a mission where we sit at the airfield for 1-2 hours literally doing nothing is a failed mission, and is not respectful of the time the members put in to showing up. The good news is there is a middle ground, in my mind. Instead of sitting around doing nothing, send us out. Give us a mission where we have to recon and avoid enemy patrols, infill as stealthily as possible, slip in under the radar, go covert. If done correctly, we don't even need to engage many contacts at all, but its still what I would call "action." Basically, things still need to occur during our missions. Events still need to happen. But that doesn't mean every mission needs multiple waves of endless enemies to shoot. Take out a small patrol with silence, slip past a defensive perimeter, do our shit and get out, with them none the wiser until daybreak and they realize their patrol is overdue. That would be fun for me, even if not full of "action" (unless we fuck up and get caught). Quick note on intel gathering not being fun - Sitting on a hill for 2 hours looking through binoculars and doing nothing else sounds boring. However, gathering intel for a while and then using that intel to do something would be fine, and could work nicely.

As the leader in question who apparently is the only one who send something up through the proper channel of the CoC to voice my options and those of my Marines, I was not planning to participate in this thread, until you decided you wanted to drag me through the dirt with this. I never intended my send up to be a "gun to your head" and never tried to imply it as such. Your job, as company, is specifically to hear what your team HQs say and pass them along as needed to solve problems. I never told you to challenge command staff, I explicitly wrote that I myself wanted to challenge command staff. And it wasn't to define milsim, it was what other people in this thread have mentioned: the unit definition of realism is too broad and causes issues like these. You can easily argue the definition of realism outlines both in game tactics, roleplay, etc, but also out of game bureaucracy, fuckfuck games, sweeping motor pools for hours, etc. - And I still challenge them to answer and redefine this. Now publicly. If what I sent to you and Company, you hesitate to send up to CS as fear of "challenging" them, that's on you Major. I issued it as a direct challenge from me to them - not you. I never threatened or implied that more people would quit if you don't cave to our specific opinion - however, as a result of decisions you could make, I cannot say people will or won't leave. This is exactly what Capt Hart was talking about when stating: If anything the send up I gave company is exactly this, yet you come here to a public post and state that I'm somehow holding a gun to your head. Never was the case. I still stand by my opinion that a public competition and now apparently a judgement in a court of public opinion is a bad idea. We had rifts in groups in the unit before this, and I still maintain that public dick waving is an easier way to make matters worse than not. I've seen cliques form on less solid ground than public grades. It was mentioned to me that doing a lot of the grading is to make sure everyone is solid on basics - I'm supportive of making sure people are solid on basics. However if people are constantly fucked up on basics, maybe we need to relook at how we do ITC and initial training, and for existing members, hold their leaders in charge of official fuck ups. One of the arguments was along the lines of that since we are MARSOC, we are held to a higher standard than standard boot Marines - yes. In the real world. In the real world a Marine would be in service for a bit before even applying to MARSOC. But in the realm of internet gaming, anyone with ArmA can apply to join this unit. I made this argument against MARSOC literally from the beginning - if I could pull up the 13th archive to show my wording i would. The jist is that if we want to emulate MARSOC as much as we can, the initial training needs to be more rigorous than maybe it currently is. Kind of side tracked by the public grading there - it is something that I am against (enough that I sent something up the CoC as expected) but it is a symptom of the main problem: The definition of realism to the 3d Marine Raider Battalion Unit is too broad. And because it is not specific enough, people come in and find their niche inside its broad reach. And then they debate and debate and argue policy over how they want to unit to be ran. That is not necessarily a bad thing, however that means people need to be open about their expectations being challenged - at all levels. And then they have to be able to debate as to what may make the unit better. If we can't take any of these criticisms fairly, whether in public or respectfully in a unit wide thread, then maybe the solution is redefine policy to be way more precise. The more precise it is, the less room for assumption, and the less you will be challenged when you make changes. As for my definition of realism, it is realism in game, tactics, strategy, and role. I want to be on the ground, in a game I love like Arma. I want to feel like a Marine clearing a building in some shit hole town, as a rifleman, or a team leader, or whatever that role is. I love that in spite of the bureaucracy set around it, not because of. I don't mind doing some reports, maintaining a simple roster, the smaller things. But the more we add shit around, outside the game of Arma - it reaches a point it becomes less fun, instead of more. Even if that shit added is real military shit. I feel like 90% of all drama and bullshit that happens in every milsim unit is directly because of out of game actions, not in game actions. And as I have seen that be the case in my experience, I will always push back on added out of game shenanigans. While grading may happen in game, all I can see is the effect it will have on the majority of the time we are out of game. "Oh they are the shit team, I don't want to fill in with them." This shit already has happened, even in the lifetime of this unit in the past, and that was before you wanted to blast grades publicly. The fact you had to specifically point this out in the post you announced the FTX means you are entirely aware of this issue, yet you still push it forward. I'll admit it may be entirely possible that everyone comes together and sings kumbaya when the report cards come out. The elitist mentality many never show up, and even if it does, it will be behind closed doors - which it is entirely possible is already happening. However public grades brings this to a forefront that I feel we don't need. The potential cons outweigh the pros, what little i see over past FTX structure where we could be evaluated by a member of company, and then given feedback during debrief. Then you file that feedback in a report. It's not a grade, but it tracks performance too. Either way, to say that nothing proper was sent up about this is entirely misleading. Respectfully, apparently the man holding a gun to Mako's head over a proper CoC send up, 1stLt Bazarnicki

When people get high and mighty over a Military LARP clan on the internet, and want to grade fucking adults like they are in preschool for their hobbies in their free time: Or