Arma 3: I&A Tactical Realism 2 Feedback Thread - CLOSED

[Boyd.M]

Can you give a list of all ordnance left in the game please.

 

[Moraru.R]

Just what is on the aircraft (like I said, I need to familiarize myself with any Whitelisting/Blacklisting capabilities of the ACE Pylons/FIR Missile rack).

Namely HE Rockets and MPP (multi purpose penetrator from FIR) rockets for the AH-64. A combination of Mk 82s/Mk 84s for the A-10.

 

[Boyd.M]

I'm not sure why we're making it so hard for air assets to have fun on Tac2....

 

[Moraru.R]

I'm not sure why we're making it so hard for air assets to have fun on Tac2....

In case there is a misunderstanding :

I will not create mission files, I will not invest leisure time and energy, in putting together turkey-shoot missions.

Either you carry weapons that can hit the enemy from across the map, in which case, the same holds for enemy AA. Or you have a more forgiving setup in terms of enemy AA ranges, but in that case your air to ground capabilities must still match the enemy ground to air capabilities.

Now, the Long Range approach has, as I had already surmised before the mission files even went public, proven to be quite intrusive. Having to deal with AA that can hit at 10km+ range, accounting for large swathes of a given map, makes the entire setup chafe under the weight of the ranges of the weapons.

Hence, why we are trying on the other approach : have shorter ranges overall, allowing aircraft, both transport and combat, more freedom of moment across the map.

And if the above setup seems to be more fun because it's more forgiving, especially for less experienced pilots, without it being trivially easy (as would be the case for a Guided Munitions vs Shilkas), then very likely that system will be adopted moving forward.

 

[Boyd.M]

Range is one thing, but SAMSITE that break the LORE of the mission and fire 20 missiles across the map every time a new AO is loaded is not the same. They are...not...the...same.

you know would would be stellar, regular enemy air assets. that would stop this "turkey shoot" and create a lot more excitement for air assets.

 

[Swagger.J]

I feel this is completely the wrong move. The normal sam sites (non nato warship bs) worked perfectly fine as AA functions when it comes to range, there is no need to add such an extreme range sam such as the one discussed.

Additionally, restricting pilot loadouts to near vanilla levels will provide a much more negative reaction. You've provided a mod for FW to use and enjoy and now you won't let us use the mod to its fullest capacity?

This attack on fw is unprecedented.
You guys complain about how overpowered we are as fw. Maybe instead of complaining, be proud of the fact the Cav has some of the best damn fixed wing aviators in ArmA. We train on these systems and dedicate hundreds of hours to perfect our craft just to be told we cant use the stuff we train on. Plus, unguided munitions will have the potential in increased chance for missed targets and blue on blue potential in inexperienced aviators.

We should be proud of the level of expertise and precision our fw aviators can achieve, however you are instead complaining and trying to make it difficult even more for us to enjoy ourselves and protect the men and women on the ground and in the air.

You guys are creating a volitile atmosphere for fixed wing aviators. I will not be around if munitions get restricted.

 

[Sypolt.R]

In case there is a misunderstanding :

I will not create mission files, I will not invest leisure time and energy, in putting together turkey-shoot missions.

Either you carry weapons that can hit the enemy from across the map, in which case, the same holds for enemy AA. Or you have a more forgiving setup in terms of enemy AA ranges, but in that case your air to ground capabilities must still match the enemy ground to air capabilities.

Now, the Long Range approach has, as I had already surmised before the mission files even went public, proven to be quite intrusive. Having to deal with AA that can hit at 10km+ range, accounting for large swathes of a given map, makes the entire setup chafe under the weight of the ranges of the weapons.

Hence, why we are trying on the other approach : have shorter ranges overall, allowing aircraft, both transport and combat, more freedom of moment across the map.

And if the above setup seems to be more fun because it's more forgiving, especially for less experienced pilots, without it being trivially easy (as would be the case for a Guided Munitions vs Shilkas), then very likely that system will be adopted moving forward.

Isn't this why we have the ROE restriction on Tac2 that infantry on the ground must call in strikes from Hog? To prevent the issue you're describing while still allowing the pilots to have their fun?

 

[Moraru.R]

I would like to underline the following point :

We are talking about a Public Server. The experience that players have takes precedence for the server to fulfill its function of attracting new people. Before being appointed to maintain the Tac2 rotation I did quite a bit of research of the other Coop servers (both vanilla and modded) and universally the most populated ones had a very specific setup in terms of the lethality of the equipment employed. The more carefully thought out these lethality controls the more popular the server.

Thus, it is not at all uncommon practice among Coop servers mission files to implement the idea of "equipment X gives players too much of a crushing advantage" or "would escalate lethality to too high levels" (think BLUFOR and REDFOR trading cluster artillery round barrages where entire squads are wiped in an instant) resulting in an un-enjoyable experience". EDIT : You would be, and I do not think this is exaggeration, aghast at how the more populated servers restrict equipment, particularly thermals and guided munitions of any type.

That said, if you will connect to Tac2 throughout the weekend you will see the version is "0.0.3a", the "a" stands for variant/side-grade. It means it has a setup that isn't part of the mainline missions instead it is a RFC (Request for Comment) version. You've made your points clear, now I'd like to hear from less experienced pilots/public players throughout this weekend.

 

[Lacasse.P]

I would like to underline the following point :

We are talking about a Public Server. The experience that players have takes precedence for the server to fulfill its function of attracting new people. Before being appointed to maintain the Tac2 rotation I did quite a bit of research of the other Coop servers (both vanilla and modded) and universally the most populated ones had a very specific setup in terms of the lethality of the equipment employed. The more carefully thought out these lethality controls the more popular the server.

Thus, it is not at all uncommon practice among Coop servers mission files to implement the idea of "equipment X gives players too much of a crushing advantage" or "would escalate lethality to too high levels" (think BLUFOR and REDFOR trading cluster artillery round barrages where entire squads are wiped in an instant) resulting in an un-enjoyable experience". EDIT : You would be, and I do not think this is exaggeration, aghast at how the more populated servers restrict equipment, particularly thermals and guided munitions of any type.

That said, if you will connect to Tac2 throughout the weekend you will see the version is "0.0.3a", the "a" stands for variant/side-grade. It means it has a setup that isn't part of the mainline missions instead it is a RFC (Request for Comment) version. You've made your points clear, now I'd like to hear from less experienced pilots/public players throughout this weekend.

Just so I’m clear, we are restricting our ordinance on the public servers to set load outs in an effort to normalize the server with other “populated” servers?

Forgive me if this sounds rude, but 2nd platoon A.co is already struggling to recruit members, restricting us in the one major recruiting area (the public servers) will hinder our overall growth.

Anyone remember the old saying, for the lack of a horseshoe nail the battle was lost?

 

[Moraru.R]

Just so I’m clear, we are restricting our ordinance on the public servers to set load outs in an effort to normalize the server with other “populated” servers?

Forgive me if this sounds rude, but 2nd platoon A.co is already struggling to recruit members, restricting us in the one major recruiting area (the public servers) will hinder our overall growth.

Anyone remember the old saying, for the lack of a horseshoe nail the battle was lost?

As Platoon Leader of 1/B/1-7, also a Platoon that is struggling, I assure you I sympathize. I do not, however, see why implementing Public Server considerations vis-a-vis Fixed Wing would result in fewer recruits interested in being Fixed Wing pilots.

Regardless of whether it's trying to lock on to a target kilometers away while contending with SAMs or coming in for a gun/bomb run at close range, the impact the A-10 has on an AO is undeniable.

Isn't a recruit that's so nitpicky about what kind of equipment is available a potentially bad fit for the Regiment? As opposed to somebody that puts a premium on the combined arms experience itself.

I myself didn't join the Cav in 2014 because the equipment was just how I thought equipment should be. I was recruited by a Cav member I battle-buddied with. What infantry equipment we used didn't really factor in too much.

 

[Lacasse.P]

As Platoon Leader of 1/B/1-7, also a Platoon that is struggling, I assure you I sympathize. I do not, however, see why implementing Public Server considerations vis-a-vis Fixed Wing would result in fewer recruits interested in being Fixed Wing pilots.

Regardless of whether it's trying to lock on to a target kilometers away while contending with SAMs or coming in for a gun/bomb run at close range, the impact the A-10 has on an AO is undeniable.

Isn't a recruit that's so nitpicky about what kind of equipment is available a potentially bad fit for the Regiment? As opposed to somebody that puts a premium on the combined arms experience itself.

I myself didn't join the Cav in 2014 because the equipment was just how I thought equipment should be. I was recruited by a Cav member I battle-buddied with. What infantry equipment we used didn't really factor in too much.

I agree on most fronts, I do agree that the A-10C is a huge force multiplier and from a game perspective, over powered.

However, showing public players that we don’t just fly one A-10 and one AH-64, and that we know how to utilize multiple airframes like the F-16 as a superior A2A fighter and the F-18 as a suitable multi role fighter would be an attractant, not so much the vast choices of ordnance.

I differ from you slightly, I don’t have a lot of “gaming buddies” that brought me to the Cav, I’ve always play solo even in multiplayer games, I came to the Cav because of the comradery, the realism and the small details the make everything a whole. When I see restricted load outs, I don’t see realism and small details, I see a brick wall.

now, in saying that, I’m competent with all ordinance, CCIP bombs and hydras don’t scare me because I’m confident I’m my avating skills, what scares me is not having a company to call home. I won’t drag this out any longer, I just wanted to put my 2 cents in.

 

[Swagger.J]

I would like to underline the following point :

We are talking about a Public Server. The experience that players have takes precedence for the server to fulfill its function of attracting new people. Before being appointed to maintain the Tac2 rotation I did quite a bit of research of the other Coop servers (both vanilla and modded) and universally the most populated ones had a very specific setup in terms of the lethality of the equipment employed. The more carefully thought out these lethality controls the more popular the server.

Thus, it is not at all uncommon practice among Coop servers mission files to implement the idea of "equipment X gives players too much of a crushing advantage" or "would escalate lethality to too high levels" (think BLUFOR and REDFOR trading cluster artillery round barrages where entire squads are wiped in an instant) resulting in an un-enjoyable experience". EDIT : You would be, and I do not think this is exaggeration, aghast at how the more populated servers restrict equipment, particularly thermals and guided munitions of any type.

That said, if you will connect to Tac2 throughout the weekend you will see the version is "0.0.3a", the "a" stands for variant/side-grade. It means it has a setup that isn't part of the mainline missions instead it is a RFC (Request for Comment) version. You've made your points clear, now I'd like to hear from less experienced pilots/public players throughout this weekend. .

You're right, player experience does take precedent in recruitment matters. Restricting the ability to configure pylons into a more effective assortment of weapon systems is going to negatively impact the experience for people who fly fixed wing. Being retired now, aren't I technically considered "a public player" at this point? I wouldn't go into another server and play if I was restricted to just what was on the bird. I'd find one with more customization options. Which is partially why i hopped in cav servers in the first place, the variety in configuration.

 

[Moraru.R]

<...>

However, showing public players that we don’t just fly one A-10 and one AH-64, and that we know how to utilize multiple airframes like the F-16 as a superior A2A fighter and the F-18 as a suitable multi role fighter would be an attractant, not so much the vast choices of ordnance.

<...>

I'm actually glad you brought this up.

I understand fully what you're talking about and while some members feel that I have a "problem" with A Co or 2/A/1-7, I really don't.

It's just when you have a Public Mission, you have take into advantage relevant things : mods, assets used, weapons deployed. We can't just slap any number of mods on Tac2 and expect people to connect and you can't just have an arbitrary amount of firepower present on the server and expect everybody to have a good time.

This is why we have the mods that we have and the mission is the way that it is.

That said, having a Public Operation which benefits from a Mission Controller present to always adjust things can put the spotlight on A Co, 2/A/1-7 much better than the "catch-all" nature of a Rotation Mission can. I recommend contacting your CoC about asking S3 for Public Ops on Tac2 featuring combat air assets proeminently.

 

[Moraru.R]

You're right, player experience does take precedent in recruitment matters. Restricting the ability to configure pylons into a more effective assortment of weapon systems is going to negatively impact the experience for people who fly fixed wing. Being retired now, aren't I technically considered "a public player" at this point? I wouldn't go into another server and play if I was restricted to just what was on the bird. I'd find one with more customization options. Which is partially why i hopped in cav servers in the first place, the variety in configuration.

As I said. I need to do my homework on how can scripts influence ACE Pylons/FIR Missile rack.

This is because between RHS Air to Ground Weapons, the ACE generic Hellfires/Mavericks and FIR Weapons there is potentially a compromise to be found. I'm pretty sure the ACE stuff caps out at 6km for example. Guided weapon but not as large range thus not as intrusive for the mission.

 

[Swagger.J]

I'm actually glad you brought this up.

I understand fully what you're talking about and while some members feel that I have a "problem" with A Co or 2/A/1-7, I really don't.

It's just when you have a Public Mission, you have take into advantage relevant things : mods, assets used, weapons deployed. We can't just slap any number of mods on Tac2 and expect people to connect and you can't just have an arbitrary amount of firepower present on the server and expect everybody to have a good time.

This is why we have the mods that we have and the mission is the way that it is.

That said, having a Public Operation which benefits from a Mission Controller present to always adjust things can put the spotlight on A Co, 2/A/1-7 much better than the "catch-all" nature of a Rotation Mission can. I recommend contacting your CoC about asking S3 for Public Ops on Tac2 featuring combat air assets proeminently.

Moraru that has been the subject of many arguments countless times, and when we ask the answer has always been "Do it yourself".
On top of that, public ops should be able to feature every part of the cav, not just select few portions. Its hard enough for FW to get a single slot in most operations, just to be restricted even further is salt to the wounds.

Also we have the mod for the fir a10 implemented on the server, you are basically gutting the functionality of the mod and might as well get rid of it at that point by restricting everything.

 

[Swagger.J]

As I said. I need to do my homework on how can scripts influence ACE Pylons/FIR Missile rack.

This is because between RHS Air to Ground Weapons, the ACE generic Hellfires/Mavericks and FIR Weapons there is potentially a compromise to be found. I'm pretty sure the ACE stuff caps out at 6km for example. Guided weapon but not as large range thus not as intrusive for the mission.

I guess i havent been playing tac2 enough lately because i dont get where the range on stuff really has anything to do with it. Idk about anyone else, but I at least dont really engage targets further than like 4km away. My missles dont really lock on efficiently much further away.

 

[Langlois.R]

This has been a burning fuse for awhile now and I think its finally popping off. Sadly as was stated above ArmA seems to be an infantry focused game with armor and rotary working quite well into the equation. FW unfortunately is such a force multiplier that it crosses a line and must be managed appropriately either by the pilots, mission makers, or both.

I've been trying to look at it through others shoes and I can see where we might be taking the fun away from the ground elements because they sit there and then when the bomb run is complete they sweep in and take out a few foot mobiles left. Doesnt sound like much fun for them.

The current Tac 2 setup was a little OP for even fixed wing and basically impossible for any rotary assets to get into the area and drop off pax. This was nice because for once fixed wing felt needed however the SAM sites were far too much for possible new recruits and less experienced pilots (heck I died 5 times in a row before finally taking out a site).

Having said all this I do still believe FW has a home in the Cav and can be utilized in a way that wont affect enjoyment on the public server for everyone else but yet still provide enjoyment and possiblity at recruitment for the company.

The first thing that I believe is a must to help with recruitment is to allow for two fighter pilot slots and multiple aircraft. ROE is big here and those flying should be held accountable for not following them.

Another possible solution is having multiple AOs that spawn (one for the ground forces and one for rotary wing and fixed wing). They can be well away from each other to minimize the effect of the other AO.

I believe we will find a common ground on this matter but it will just take more time, effort, and communication to achieve.

 

[Robbi.J]

Moraru.R These changes you have chosen to implement directly, negatively impact A/1-7, and you didn’t consult with Company staff on any of it. As such you now see the deleterious effects it has caused. We are addressing this now with S3 CoC. In the future do not make these types of unilateral changes without first reaching out to us to ensure it benefits your own Cav brothers. If you wish to speak on this matter feel free to shoot a pm.

A Co troopers, no further replies needed on this issue. We are addressing it.

 

[Irishman563]

Moraru.R Restriction of pylons is a good thing in an adequate form. Its ok, for example, to restrict people from having 100+ APKWS missiles on each pylon. The restriction must create realistic aircraft load-outs for each pylon. Because for the A-10 it's impossible to put certain stuff on certain pylons, because of how this airframe works.
As an experienced fixed-wing pilot, I personally get sick when I see people flying with 6 GBU-56, 2 GBU-54, 6 AGMs, 60+ APKWS. It's not realistic. When I hop on an airframe I have 2 GBU-55, 2 GBU-12, 7 Hydras, and 2 AGM-65 at maximum, especially on the Firewill aircraft because of how easy it is to fly and operate and how OP the GAU-8 is.

But restricting the entire pylon system to only unguided munition is just stupid. I can understand the annoyance of unrealistic loadouts, that just makes me cringe. But deleting everything except unguided makes no sense at all.

But deleting guided munition is not a solution for the problem. You need to take down the roots, not the fruits.
EDUCATE people to be more authentic. Explain to them that you guys are fighting against the AI, there's no need to have as much loadout as possible. Try to be realistic, bring immersion. What's wrong with flying a couple of times RTB during the CAS missions to actually rearm your jet and not just orbit for 3 hours shooting Laser-guided missiles not even leaving the trajectory of the orbit like a dumbass. Why didn't I use all the ordnance I could mount on each pylon of an A-10C? Because it's boring and not realistic. I'm here to bring people fun and entourage, not to get killstreaks.

You want people to be more skilled - give them RHS A-10A. That's pure skill. No IR Missle warnings, No radar in the right bottom of your screen, only a monitor in the cockpit. Flymodel isn't perfect, but at least it doesn't allow to do insane pirouettes Firewill does. Restricted camera, which is a bad thing in my opinion, because it's not working with the Thermal improved modification. What else? No jammer, no laser pods. Maybe it's just me showing off, because of how much experience I have on this airframe, I wouldn't deny that ;DDD

 

[Geki.T]

After playing this new I&A, I feel like we've stepped back 4 years and completely regressed, removing everything that people have worked on for the past four years just to return to a mission file that:

- doesn't include the equipment we train and operate with (UNARMORED HMMWVS?! Lack of Sufficient amount of Strykers?)

- returns to the old and boring nomenclature of "attack city, but the AA is just a group of 3 pieces randomly placed together in some arbitrary location that makes zero tactical sense"

- Lack of dynamic objectives and purposeful combat

- No sufficient means for troop resupply. No way for Buffalo crews to load ammo crates on their birds

- Irresponsible restrictions on air assets that is par for the course knowing the mission creator. No matter how many times it's stated that our air assets need to be able to have access to what they train with, the mission creator refuses to listen to this piece of feedback.

- Irresponsible placement and usage of enemy AA. As mentioned earlier, there is zero rhyme or reason for the AA to be what it is and placed where it is. It's not engaging, it's abhorrently boring and looks like someone brand new to how to design missions would place it. No reason for it to just be all clustered together in one 50 square meter section and have it all be the same thing.

I can't believe we allowed ourselves to fall back this hard.