Results 721 to 740 of 2111
05-04-2013, 09:37 AM #721
Boris, it's really not about you. You lead us in Esamir as well, and the way we took and held Eisa was brilliant. And that was your leadership. And it was a thing of beauty: Four giraffe galaxies in the warpgate, everyone going quickly into his or her squad's designated one, then taking off in formation, and all of us dropping on our targets. I recall LtArtorius comment as we took off "This is my favourite part in the game".
As for the Bastion, this is one of the failings of the Hydraffe: It is really hard to consolidate forces when they are so spread out. I think we at North Grove couldn't redeploy there.
And I think this contrast between the two campaigns highlights that it is mostly about the Hydraffe. I will also like to make clear that this is an opportunity for a debate on operational doctrine in general, which I believe has been dominated by that concept, while the metagame on Miller has moved beyond that. Territory control is still important (perhaps with the alert system it has even gained some more significance), but momentum, maneuvers in force and large confrontations determine the winner.
Last edited by MrEclectic; 05-04-2013 at 09:54 AM. Reason: Recalling even more details about the gal drop and quoting the wrong post!
05-04-2013, 09:38 AM #722
I think the plan to distract from Sungrey and surround Mekala was brilliant, personally, and a totally correct application of the Hydraffe.
05-04-2013, 11:11 AM #723
The problem with large confrontations is that you have to find them and not be a grinder. We could've joined the fight for Sungrey and not be nearly as effective as we were now. They or (probably) the NC would probably have gone around us and cut us off. They were 1 territory away from our gate, and at that point I think the first thing you need to secure is time. It takes time to cap a base and you can't start the next one until the current one is capped, so that gives a defending force (us) time to relocate if they try to make a move on us. Mekala has the added bonus of giving the Sungrey platoons the option to get MBTs, but that wasn't even close to the primary reason for taking it.
We could've combined arms Mekala, but there wasn't anyone there. We couldn't have combined arms Ikanam Bio, because it's a Biolab.
Personally, I think a lot of this comes down to leadership style and I like surrounding shit and attacking it from all sides.
05-04-2013, 01:41 PM #724
- Join Date
- Dec 2012
I must preface this post with the fact that I wasn't involved last night, but I still feel I have something to contribute.
This type of discussion concerns me, and I think it encapsulates one of the main reasons people are reluctant to step up as PL.
Mr. Eclectic - I really appreciate what you are saying about this not being about Boris's leadership, but given that you are criticising tactics/strategy used on the night it is very hard not to see it as picking apart his decision making. If we are to encourage new and inexperienced PLs, then having a rant about what you did not like about a session's strategy and tactics, however well-meaning it might be, is really not going to help. Fundamentally, you weren't in Boris's shoes last night, you didn't have access to all the information he had, and so you can't have the full picture as to why decisions were made.
Talk of a 'military doctrine' also worries me. My understanding of this is that it would be a set of guidelines as to how we approach different types of tactical situation, which is fair enough. But what happens if we have a PL who isn't familiar with whatever is in it, or maybe feels that a particular situation they face is best dealt with in a different way, or just wants to experiment? Do we pick them apart? Hold a post-mortem? Or do we accept that we will have PLs of different types, with different approaches and different ideas about how to play the game? I know I would be extremely discouraged if, after spending 2 or 3 hours doing what I thought was the 'right' thing and getting stressed and worrying about whether my decisions were 'correct', my performance was then picked apart in this way.
Of course, this does raise the question of how we improve and give feedback to those who have led. I don't have any easy answers to this, but am really unsure as to whether what we are doing here is the best way to do it.
05-04-2013, 02:08 PM #725
Valid concerns both, Wibbster.
My answer to both of those is that indeed we already have kind of a doctrine, that encourages us to go and cap as much territory as possible, by spreading the platoon as much as possible, sometimes with severe logistical and tactical implications. And that doctrine is propageted to the newest leaders by its constant usage. Discussing and using tactics and strategies lead to a doctrine. It may not be set in stone, but it is becoming part of our outfit's way of thinking about operational planning and execution.
As for my criticism, last night was just the tipping point for me. Indeed I was not in Boris's shoes, and his decisions had solid foundations and bore results. But nevertheless, I still believe that we can achieve more, especially when we have such forces at our disposal as last night. It is not about individual decision making, but a pattern in the whole operation of the outfit that worries me. I enjoy playing under Boris's leadership, and if I didn't, I would just log off and not make an issue out of it. But there is an emergent operational outfit doctrine, and I strongly believe that it constrains us.
05-04-2013, 02:26 PM #726
And, by the by, it seems that I must have contracted a case of foot-mouth disease:
In which post a member of one of the most skilled TR outfits praises Boris's encirclement of Ikanam and rejects another TR's criticism of that maneuver.
Perhaps we are doing better. But I still believe that we can and must evolve our game style and operational doctrine.
Last edited by MrEclectic; 05-04-2013 at 02:30 PM.
05-04-2013, 02:29 PM #727
- Join Date
- Aug 2012
I just posted this in the genral outfit thread, but I think it needs posting here too...
That reaction to us appearing and capping so much territory decisively seems to have made an impression. While I think it would be good to mix it up a little (I'd like a few more armour columns for instance) quick airbourne deployment and ground pounding for territory is the bread and butter of the game and I enjoyed last night despite my connection issues.
Good job all round, and a giraffe for Boris!
05-04-2013, 02:45 PM #728
- Join Date
- Mar 2013
If we are too spread out do we need more air support when we split up? 3 ground squads can cap 3 adjacent bases and if any meet heavy resistance you can have a squad of liberators/scythes there in seconds.
Maybe even have a battle gal permanently in the air which can be emptied (turning the gunners into ~4 reinforcements) and be used to ferry the other squads around as needed without having to make a trip to the warp gate.
In any case it seems we need a plan to split and recombine forces quickly when doing this kind of thing, which could give us the best of both worlds.
In any case, I enjoyed last night even if I was only on for an hour, although being in Alpha Squad may have coloured my opinions because apparently we had it good.
Last edited by LordKiwi; 05-04-2013 at 02:49 PM.
05-04-2013, 07:01 PM #729
I wasn't there last night, so I can't/won't comment, but...
Part of the strength of RPS is that we have a variety of leaders who employ a variety of tactics. It is up to the PLs to make sure that the SLs and grunts know what their plan/intention is and to make sure they have an iron grip on how they want to be running things. This variety in leadership means we grow used to different tactics and are adaptable as a force. It also means our enemies can't quickly predict what we'll be doing.
I feel obliged to point out the thread detailing the various leaders. If you're a PL and you haven't posted there, please do.
05-04-2013, 07:13 PM #730
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
Let's face it, the game as it stands is still pretty transient and throwaway when it comes to achieving things in the grand sense, and the metagame provides very little feedback into gameplay. Being part of a succesful continent lock push is awesome, but it's become increasingly rare and hard to achieve without massive inter-outfit ops; we all know that e.g. the TR will swing Indar right back at 3am tonight, and if they do it's not going to affect the way we approach our session tomorrow night that much.
The more common amazing moments in the game are those where our own narrative of achievement emerges. A recent example that stuck out for me was a session last week where we pretty much ghost capped all 3 tech plants on Amerish, and then hung out between Tumas and Heyoka holding off the inevitable no-tank- tantrum-Zerg off for as long as possible. It achieved nothing in the broader sense, and only lasted an hour or so, but it was immensely satisfying to be a part of.
I do think it's right to bring up worries about strategic doctrine - of any kind - becoming fixed, because to my mind it's the freedom our PLs have (on any night bar those with a big VA op) to set their own wide ranging goals and methods that makes RPS such constant fun to play with.
05-04-2013, 11:22 PM #731
I too like the diversity of people and styles we have leading RPS. It will be even more awesome seeing what new figures emerge in the weeks and months to come!
+1 for JG's reminder of the know your leaders thread. I liked reading what people wrote there, but it took me a couple of weeks to figure out what to write about myself, so I understand if others find it tricky too.
08-04-2013, 12:04 PM #732
Jim just tweeted out about another call to arms, and PCG responded. I proposed a fight on Amerish or Esamir. Lets get combined arms running this time. I suggest Cooper runs noobplatoon 1 (if you want to) like last time since that worked great. Eclectic takes platoon 2 where I lead alpha infantry squad and mentor him. Bravo could be infantry as well, Charlie armor and Delta air/AA. Takers for SL and CO in b, c, d? Maybe we split noobplatoon in two where we have two squad leaders leading the noobs on the ground as well?
08-04-2013, 12:09 PM #733
Any other sls that could stream or record? Good propaganda opportunity.
08-04-2013, 12:14 PM #734
Before splitting squads by role, if there's another call to arms we need to have a streamlined, simple process of getting people into squads and into the game.
As Platoon 1 filled out and I started moving people to other, squad based, platoons, I simply told the PL they had incoming new players and moved people about in Mumble.
This needs to be different. I suggest PLs tell me when they are reforming at WG and allow that reforming to take ten minutes as new players get filtered into the squad based platoons."KING GEORGE IS A FROG
le BANG~__-MICHEAL FUCK OFF~~__-INTERPOL KNOW YOU WELLBIENG~—
NOT RUSHMORE MOUNTAIN
KILL WESTON KILL MUST KILLTHEWESTERNINMYHEADDOESN’TEXSIST
TEXASISDEADINPARISHEWASAMAN..BINGBING.TETTOHEAD.SP ACEOK,TIMEDEADANDSTOPPED1920HOKKAIDO.UNDERSTOODAT1 ONE.
08-04-2013, 12:20 PM #735
- Join Date
- Feb 2013
- Stockholm, Sweden
On thursday, eh? I might be able to do strategic for one of the squads. Can't promise anything yet (it'll depend on how many billions of pages I have to read for school), but I'm definitely interested.
08-04-2013, 12:22 PM #736
Sounds good. Since we might need three platoons we could have a dedicated air/armor one for vets of the game that know how to play?
In that case new players could be shifted to the infantry platoon were we move via gals, making redeployment and transport for new players simple and swift. In that case we could reform quite often so you can shift players over.
08-04-2013, 12:28 PM #737
Yeah, the way we did it last time was a pain in tha arse for us PLing. Your suggestion sounds like a good plan, though. We could even send people out one squad at a time, so as not to pull all our soldiers off the field at once. Now that we have a couple of channel admins in Mumble, we could make sure that players end up in the right squad channels without having to tell them where to go, necessarily, or fix things if they don't manage themselves.
I wouldn't mind actually squad leading somewhere (as opposed to radiogiraffing), but I don't know if I'll play this Thursday. Only night this week the wife is home. Not strictly true, but she comes home a bit late Wednesday.
I like splitting squads by purpose, though. We should do this. New players are going to be rather weak in an air-squad though, yeah? Default Scythes are pretty bad, at least. Photon pods, a sidegrade to the extended afterburners? Nah... Also, flying in this game is hard. We do need lib gunners etc, I suppose.
08-04-2013, 12:29 PM #738"Halo is designed to make the player think "I look like that, I am macho sitting in my undies with my xbox""
08-04-2013, 12:30 PM #739
08-04-2013, 12:33 PM #740
- Join Date
- Feb 2013
- Stockholm, Sweden
On the other hand, I don't think it's a bad idea to let completely new players play gunner in magriders/libs. It gives them a chance to experience what decked-out vehicles can do, and it also shows that we are open to newer, less experienced players as well.
From an efficiency standpoint I agree that it's good that both driver and gunner can spawn a decent tank, but I'm not sure if that's the best idea for a call to arms.
And there's always the option of having people with decked out vehicles to pull them and grant ownership to other players as well.