12-16-2016, 02:27 PM
Alright, I feel I have to get a few things out of the way before I start this.
I have no issue with a mission-specific reasoning to not have certain equipment. I've done that in the past. For example, one of my first Arma 3 mission ("Screw Driving") had your team on the road to extraction without actually expecting anything, so nobody had any night vision equipment. Most Guerilla missions don't have NVG's.
Lost Squad with no rifleman radio is borderline; I can understand not having equipment in Jolly Green because you just got shot down and need to GTFO.
In general, though, I feel like there is no compelling reason to not give soliders the equipment that they should have. That means that a spec ops team will have NVG's, and at least the leader will have a GPS. In the German Army, GPS is standard for every KSK solider, and the team leader has a vest-integrated tablet computer with Blufor tracking.
Guerillas can go without any fancy stuff. They will, as a rule, not have optics, not even colimators, no NVG's, and may or may not have a GPS.
In any case, however, the decision is with the mission maker, but what I am asking is, does it make a mission better? Does a mission, or the experience of the mission, improve by adding or taking away something? Let me give three examples.
1. McGregor's "Into the Void"
I really do not see what harm the mission would have suffered from giving the team leaders GPS. As McG said himself, his idea wast to insert directly into the compounds, but in either case, I do not see the lack of a GPS improving the mission experience. About the AT, I can live with only having one if the BMP-2 is a surprise that wasn't expected to be there, so that people have to improvise ("Find more AT, quickly"). Does it improve the mission experience? Well at the very least it increases adrenaline.
2. SPhoenix' night mission (forgot the name)
As a recon special forces team, I found it very "unconventional" to say the least to skip the NVG's in favor of artillery fired battlefield illumination. Granted, it was right at the point were the new lighting configs completely fucked up night. However, even without that, the result was that for most of the time in this mission I didn't see anything, got stuck on trees or rocks etc. Did that improve the mission experience? IMO, no it didn't. On the contrary.
3. Stag's "Port of Call"
I could have accepted no NVG's here because it was an underwater insertion and you tend to travel lightly when you have to swim. In the harbour it was bright enough anyway, I only ever switched them on once we moved away into the wilderness.
The lack of AT in this case is explainable and within the spirit of the mission - it's supposed to be stealthy, and the attack at the end was entirely unexpected.
Bottom Line
I think this is a question of expectation vs. improving the mission. I expect, as a special operations solider, to be adequately equipped. And the expense of realism, removing something from this is fine (IMO, as I said) if and only if it improves the mission or the mission experience. In case of the GPS in "Into the Void" I do not see any reason in how far this improved the mission - on the contrary, with no one (not even the pilots) having a GPS the only effect it had on the mission was making the initial approach more confusing. Once we got into the compounds, the fun part started and we had a couple of awesome firefights. When I took the lead, I decided to go into the villa guns blazing and it was (at least for me) real fun. So, again, I wonder, in how far a GPS for the team leader would have made this experience worse, or how no GPS improved it. The answer (for me) is it wouldn't have made it any worse, quite the contrary, it would have made the initial approach easier and therefore make the mission itself better.
Anyway, that's my take on the question. Feel free to disagree if you dare
- I really enjoyed McGregor's mission, in fact I enjoyed all of his missions, and I hope he makes more.
- It is entirely up to the mission maker what he does and does not put into the mission. I am merely suggesting/arguing, not demanding.
- I'm a sucker for realism.
I have no issue with a mission-specific reasoning to not have certain equipment. I've done that in the past. For example, one of my first Arma 3 mission ("Screw Driving") had your team on the road to extraction without actually expecting anything, so nobody had any night vision equipment. Most Guerilla missions don't have NVG's.
Lost Squad with no rifleman radio is borderline; I can understand not having equipment in Jolly Green because you just got shot down and need to GTFO.
In general, though, I feel like there is no compelling reason to not give soliders the equipment that they should have. That means that a spec ops team will have NVG's, and at least the leader will have a GPS. In the German Army, GPS is standard for every KSK solider, and the team leader has a vest-integrated tablet computer with Blufor tracking.
Guerillas can go without any fancy stuff. They will, as a rule, not have optics, not even colimators, no NVG's, and may or may not have a GPS.
In any case, however, the decision is with the mission maker, but what I am asking is, does it make a mission better? Does a mission, or the experience of the mission, improve by adding or taking away something? Let me give three examples.
1. McGregor's "Into the Void"
I really do not see what harm the mission would have suffered from giving the team leaders GPS. As McG said himself, his idea wast to insert directly into the compounds, but in either case, I do not see the lack of a GPS improving the mission experience. About the AT, I can live with only having one if the BMP-2 is a surprise that wasn't expected to be there, so that people have to improvise ("Find more AT, quickly"). Does it improve the mission experience? Well at the very least it increases adrenaline.
2. SPhoenix' night mission (forgot the name)
As a recon special forces team, I found it very "unconventional" to say the least to skip the NVG's in favor of artillery fired battlefield illumination. Granted, it was right at the point were the new lighting configs completely fucked up night. However, even without that, the result was that for most of the time in this mission I didn't see anything, got stuck on trees or rocks etc. Did that improve the mission experience? IMO, no it didn't. On the contrary.
3. Stag's "Port of Call"
I could have accepted no NVG's here because it was an underwater insertion and you tend to travel lightly when you have to swim. In the harbour it was bright enough anyway, I only ever switched them on once we moved away into the wilderness.
The lack of AT in this case is explainable and within the spirit of the mission - it's supposed to be stealthy, and the attack at the end was entirely unexpected.
Bottom Line
I think this is a question of expectation vs. improving the mission. I expect, as a special operations solider, to be adequately equipped. And the expense of realism, removing something from this is fine (IMO, as I said) if and only if it improves the mission or the mission experience. In case of the GPS in "Into the Void" I do not see any reason in how far this improved the mission - on the contrary, with no one (not even the pilots) having a GPS the only effect it had on the mission was making the initial approach more confusing. Once we got into the compounds, the fun part started and we had a couple of awesome firefights. When I took the lead, I decided to go into the villa guns blazing and it was (at least for me) real fun. So, again, I wonder, in how far a GPS for the team leader would have made this experience worse, or how no GPS improved it. The answer (for me) is it wouldn't have made it any worse, quite the contrary, it would have made the initial approach easier and therefore make the mission itself better.
Anyway, that's my take on the question. Feel free to disagree if you dare
I don't need luck, I have ammo.