Lessons Learned From First Multi-Mission Tank Event

[Friar]

Salute,

Now we have finished our first attempt at a multiple mission campaign with the T34 Campaign, what can we take away for the next one? For me, the lessons I have learned are below. If you have any to add, please do so.

• When converting a single player event into a dog fight with AI tanks programmed to set off the triggers puts too much pressure on getting the mission off quickly and smoothly.
• Allowing a large group in the same TeamSpeak channel with no structure leads to chaos and confusion.
• A small group of players in an organised group can take out AI targets quite easily so need to be overwhelmed by numbers of targets.
• Players should have a defined brief at the start so the objectives and what they are supposed to be doing are clear. Without this it just leads to a "points whore" fest and people racing off to find targets.
• For missions which are planned to cover a large distance need regular points of conflict to keep the action going.
•  If we are going to use separate TS channels, links and communication needs to be set up so that units can easily keep each other updated. Platoon leaders should also be designated. I do not see why tank events could not replicate the discipline showed in the P38 event organised by Fenrir.
• The consequences of being killed should have a higher impact, without detracting from a players enjoyment of the event.
• Explore the possibility of running short co-ops like a normal Tuesday / Sunday flying night. When you get killed you are dead until the next mission is put up. Killed players could have the option of multi-crewing another tank still in game.
• Details of what is planned for the night should be published in advance on the forums so players can prepare. This does require those taking part to update themselves via the forum rather than being "spoon" fed on the night.

If you agree / disagree with any of these please let me know, or as I said, if you have any of your own, please let me know.

I would also be very interested to hear from anyone who has ideas of scenarios we could try and replicate for other special events.

Regards

Friar

 

[FoolTrottel]

Good show Colin... !

 In general I do agree with all of the items... They do not seem new though - it's basically very much the same when flying, is it not?'

>>For missions which are planned to cover a large distance need regular points of conflict to keep the action going.<<

Not sure here. If one does behave carefully, one would always be on the look out, regularly stopping, and scanning the area in front. So, it could be correct to travel a 'large distance' without any points of conflict? This still is 'action' in my opinion - it's rather different than flying a patrol, where dots can be seen very early and an ambush situation is rather impossible. Suggestion: Lose the blue/yellow-line-to-follow option: Let the tanks themselves find the their own/best way to their target - This add to the immersion - I think - Yeah you'd probably need to add more stuff on the ground? 

>>The consequences of being killed should have a higher impact, without detracting from a players enjoyment of the event.<<

Reduce the number of re-spawn points?

 

Mind you: I have not got a clue on battle ground tactics ... 

Some wild idea:

* Use different types of thanks in one mission, different roles to play: A light fast tank as opposed to one of them guns-on-tracks?

 

[Painless]

Agree with most of the points raised both by Friar and FT. I really enjoyed the mission on Saturday as it was a massive improvement on the one before. I liked the misdirection attempted by the Germans posing as Russians Friar put into the last mission particularly. Different comms worked well and smaller units with separate tasks was fun.

Adding a navigation challenge is a good idea as is including different types of tanks and self propelled guns. Imagine having to bring up a tank killer if you come across a Tiger or two. The fastest tank is the T34 so that could be used to scout with KV1s as the main battle tank? Travel speed would have to be reduced if ISU152 SPGs were needed for combat. More to think about and more fun ?

A more sever “penalty” for being killed might not be necessary if each played considers “no deaths” as important as a personal kill tally as a measure of a successful mission ?

I thought the number of respawn points was about right but maybe more enemy targets might be something to consider ?

My 2 cents 👍🏻

[Friar]

Thanks guys, useful input.

On the subject of no route on the map, letting the players navigate to the location. It is considered best practice not to have lots and lost of AI units active on the map all at once. To get round this the units people came across were only "activated" when players came within a certain distance by someone entering a "zone". If players were allowed free roam over a map they may not enter these "zones", or the zones would have to be made quite large to cover all possible routes, which is doable, so worth considering.

I now have the way to hide spawn points until a player gets to a "trigger". This way now re-spawn points set into the distance will not show and therefore give away the possible areas of conflict.

A multi-arms scenario is possible. Players could decide themselves at spawn in who wanted to take what type of tank, although as Painless suggests, the speed differential will need to be considered, or some transport "gadget" (drive the Su152 to a given point, perhaps a railway station. This triggers the tank being "loaded" onto the train. It travels to another location (a new spawn point) where the player can pick it up again. Or a "truck" could carry it. If the truck was to be killed, you loose the tank. Could even have limited numbers of units available to make players protect their tank.

I definitely could have done with more targets. As we get more proficient at gunnery we are taking the units out before they have had a chance to engage us.

Appreciate the input, keep it coming (good and bad), will only make the next event better.  

 

[FoolTrottel]

Regarding free roaming on the map : I do have the impression that if the brief states 'there's your target' and people drop in at the start point, well, that limits the roaming free is it? If one reads the map, roads will still dictate the route. Rivers and bridges will... Maybe too much hassle? I dunno ...

As for 'not to have lots and lost of AI units active on the map' do we have an idea on numbers?

For sure, that's very relevant. How many did you have in the latest missions? They did perform very nicely ...

 

Edit: That put-tank-on-train is a nice idea... very nice!

[Parts]

Firstly, thank you Colin for another thoroughly enjoyable expedition in tons of metal. The following are IMHO

• More enemy in multi waves that may be force a withdraw and the need to resupply ammo and repair
• Perhaps like the P-38's players could have character names which may encourage life longevity 
• If the enemy are there on the map but dormant until triggered could the trigger points not be a large circle around the enemy 2-3 km for static locations 5 km for rolling enemies and 10 km for airborne enemies 
• Well hidden enemy awaiting in ambush (top camouflage)
• The re-spawn could be delayed - any long drive back across terrain to rejoin your unit should be made more difficult with enemy loitering to make life hard work and perhaps distract you team from their mission as they return to assist you. (nothing like a bi of peer pressure)

2 bobs worth

I loved the sneaky Germans on Saturday night too. All in all the learning curve from the week before was steep but very obviously useful. The 2 units and radio channels worked very well. 

I heard FT's chat about not coordinating the final assault after the regroup. Fair shout I think. We had survived up to that point and had missed a chance to re-brief before kicking off for the final blast. 

I am sure that there is more but my brain is sleepy so I am off to my maggot. 

Cheers again Colin