It is not about the APC it is about the objective beeing in sight, up hill and in range of heavy weapons.
The objective was a known enemy location.
An LZ situated downhill, in sight and in range of a known enemy objective is kamikaze.
Edit: And no matter what weird "in real life/game" comparisons anybody tries to draw: Beeing dead in game is not fun. By sending a chopper to almost certain death the leader makes the mission less fun.
We were lucky the enemy is death and blind.
(03-22-2016, 01:24 PM)Sithis link Wrote:An LZ situated downhill, in sight and in range of a known enemy objective is kamikaze.
If that were the case, why didn't you register your complaints with me during the briefing? Or during the flight in? Or when you were about to land?
You did not complain a single time that this was obviously "kamikaze" or "too close". You only started this after the mission.Why? Because it was neither.
There was only ever ONE and ONLY ONE complaint, that was from Unnamed stating that he thinks the LZ was too dangerous. I had a different opinion. But nobody else complained about any LZ during the mission. Think about that.
(03-22-2016, 01:09 PM)Sithis link Wrote:...
Give it a rest
Yea, I thinks it's starting to go too far into the direction of a fun/caution discussion
(03-22-2016, 01:33 PM)Alwarren link Wrote:If that were the case, why didn't you register your complaints with me during the briefing? Or during the flight in? Or when you were about to land?
You did not complain a single time that this was obviously "kamikaze" or "too close". You only started this after the mission.Why? Because it was neither.
There was only ever ONE and ONLY ONE complaint, that was from Unnamed stating that he thinks the LZ was too dangerous. I had a different opinion. But nobody else complained about any LZ during the mission. Think about that.
Because I was in no position to and I sure as hell am not filing a complaint.
We all do mistakes, but if we argue about every single decision during the mission we would get nowhere. Sometimes stuff goes wrong. Plenty of times I lead my group up a hill and noticed " Oh shit I left that entire flank open! Well I was lucky nobody attacked that way" and then try not to repeat the same mistake.
This is the debriefing right? Where we debrief each other? The place where we can help each other realize our mistakes without anybody feeling personally attacked?
Quote:Give it a rest
Check
(03-22-2016, 01:50 PM)Sithis link Wrote:Because I was in no position to and I sure as hell am not filing a complaint.
We all do mistakes, but if we argue about every single decision during the mission we would get nowhere.
I am sorry, but we're not talking about "every single decision", we're talking about one that you just labelled as "Kamikaze" and "sucidal", not about the color of the teams or my naming of LZ's. You didn't perceive it as too dangerous during the mission, or you WOULD have said something, I refuse to believe that you would go into this knowing it was suicidal and not at least register your complaint, as Unnamed did.
All it would have taken would have been a simple "I think we should maybe move the LZ's away a bit, they might be too close" or" That LZ is at the bottom of a hill, I don't think it is a good idea". You did neither.
Zavarak Data Heist
All I have to say about this is after rapidly being promoted to command, I immediately broke my own rule and lead from the front. Which eventually lead to my death. It's quite hard to not do it though when you are the overall leader, and at the same time the leader of one of the fire teams. I do like leading, though it would be much easier if a dedicated team leader were built into the missions, maybe with a medic and some other specialist in his team, ideally just a medic.
(03-22-2016, 01:09 PM)Sithis link Wrote:Being dead increases the downtime
It might but I would rather take the risk of getting killed than playing it too safe. I would like to encourage leaders to take risks rather than discourage them.
(03-22-2016, 02:36 PM)Mjolnir link Wrote:[size=1em]Zavarak Data Heist
[/size][size=1em]All I have to say about this is after rapidly being promoted to command, I immediately broke my own rule and lead from the front. Which eventually lead to my death. It's quite hard to not do it though when you are the overall leader, and at the same time the leader of one of the fire teams. I do like leading, though it would be much easier if a dedicated [/size]team leader were built into the missions, maybe with a medic and some other specialist in his team, ideally just a medic.
Same happened to me, as it does frequently. I just managed to say "team, on me", tried to move forward to the next building, and didn't notice the CSAT camping in the grass next to me. Bang Dead.
Most of my missions have the separate command team setup (Squad lead plus medic), but not always.
wow, what a debate, interesting read... working on a PVP/Coop mission that may help settle some differences lol
It seemed our pilot spotted the road block, and as our commander suggested "if your LZ is compromised, land somewhere else" (not an exact quote), our pilot did exactly that.
Question regarding next in charge: Do you think regardless of who is in your team or who has the command bar, if only one player has a space to hold the long range radio, then that player should be next in charge of team? (good or bad idea?)
(03-22-2016, 04:40 PM)treendy link Wrote:Question regarding next in charge: Do you think regardless of who is in your team or who has the command bar, if only one player has a space to hold the long range radio, then that player should be next in charge of team? (good or bad idea?)
It's irrelevant who gets the command bar or who can reach/carry the LR radio, the person who's in the best position to lead should take over. If that person can't also carry the LR they can always ask someone else to relay messages for them and in a lot of missions they'll hear incoming LR on their alternate SR channel anyway.
Quote:It's irrelevant who gets the command bar or who can reach/carry the LR radio, the person who's in the best position to lead should take over. If that person can't also carry the LR they can always ask someone else to relay messages for them and in a lot of missions they'll hear incoming LR on their alternate SR channel anyway.
good point, could be a slight delay in team leader response though.
Maybe we could decide "second in charge" (of team) at start, and pick slot to suit (i.e. second in charge not to be medic/Engineer etc)?
(03-22-2016, 04:58 PM)doveman link Wrote:It's irrelevant who gets the command bar or who can reach/carry the LR radio, the person who's in the best position to lead should take over. If that person can't also carry the LR they can always ask someone else to relay messages for them and in a lot of missions they'll hear incoming LR on their alternate SR channel anyway.
Be advised that the new GroupInfo has a popup menu (by default on the rarely mapped key-combo CTRL-ALT-SHIFT-O) that contains a "take command of group" item, allowing the one that took over command to get the command bar.
(03-22-2016, 05:06 PM)treendy link Wrote:good point, could be a slight delay in team leader response though.
Maybe we could decide "second in charge" (of team) at start, and pick slot to suit (i.e. second in charge not to be medic/Engineer etc)?
I don't think that is feasible, since it may change at any time, and it isn't assured that the appointed second-in-command is still alive at the point that the team leader is killed.
I would just assume enough initiative from the players that someone steps up and takes command.
(03-22-2016, 05:09 PM)Alwarren link Wrote:Be advised that the new GroupInfo has a popup menu (by default on the rarely mapped key-combo CTRL-ALT-SHIFT-O) that contains a "take command of group" item, allowing the one that took over command to get the command bar.
Ah, that's great, thanks.