Arkod

@ShadowAce11 I think the video itself is good. However it lacks information on how to join the server. Just add a link that points people to somewhere where they can find more information about the server - main website, forums and/or TS IP.

I think this is a "solution" to a non-existent problem. Even though I would like to see different callsigns for each pilot team because I think it would make comms easier and clearer (It's faster to process who's talking on the radio if they have a unique callsign instead of a number), I think Vortex 1 and Vortex 2 works just fine. There is absolutely no need to restrict callsigns to role / aircraft because pilots tend to switch between different assets relatively often, which means they'd have to reslot or a "dynamic callsign" system would have to be introduced, the latter may get confusing for CMD/SL and even Pilots themselves. So either leave Vortex 1 and 2 or change it for "neutral" callsigns without restricting their roles.

@Ryko Can you check enemy Anti-Air settings for gauntlet? I've been flying quite a lot lately and whenever I take a simple Medium CAS Little Bird I find several ZSU's and eventually jets (plural), which seems like an overkill.

Not sure why this change is needed at all, I just don't see an issue with this. I've never seen anyone under-prepare just to have an excuse to get an AK from an enemy. Most of my loadouts come with 7-9 mags and most of the time it's enough to finish an AO. If I run out of ammo, there's usually someone who has spare mags, but if there are no spare mags, I'd rather have the option to get a weapon from an enemy and be combat effective than running with my pistol. Target identification should be Uniform > Weapon. If you can see what weapon the target has, you certainly can see what uniform they're wearing. On top of that you can check their "behaviour" - players move VERY different compared to AI. If someone gets team killed, chances are it wasn't because of their weapon, but because they were in the wrong place (alone - not with their team).

Russian faction in Takistan seems to be broken - only 1 player can be inside a vehicle at a time. My guess is that the player faction is set as Blufor, but the "base model" (the one you spawn as) is still Opfor - therefore the game detects each player as hostile to each other and the game doesn't allow enemies to share a vehicle. I haven't looked at how it's actually done in gauntlet, so it may be a wrong guess.

First person lock changes the dynamic of playing in a tank drastically. The inability to quickly scan your surroundings with a single mouse movement makes it a little bit more stressful and more interesting in my opinion. Will all of those assets be used? That's a total of 6 armour pieces and 4 apaches.

I'd say 3-5 objectives would be best. Off the top of my head: Airport-Mosque-Villa(East) and 2 more if needed/wanted. Potentially add a parameter to choose how many objectives.

Spawn each team on different sides of the town (North/South) and then fight for the objectives. Essentially Conquest from BF... Win condition could be same as BF, get X amount of points by holding objectives, or 1st team to cap X amount of objectives.

Next Saturday is 12th... So is it the next one (12th) or the one after (19th)?

I'm not an admin, but I'm pretty sure it has a 100% of getting denied because AW doesn't have the mods necessary to run it and probably won't get them just for a single gamenight / campaign. But it doesn't really matter, as it looks like most people don't want WW2 anyways.

Takistan version of Gauntlet doesn't have AT4 for fireteams. I assume it's to give MAT a bigger and more defined role. Even though I agree that this kind of change was needed to make MAT more useful, I still think that a Fireteam should have at least 1 AT4, in case MAT is not able to respond to the threat. I propose renaming Rifleman into Rifleman AT and allowing them to pick up AT4 from arsenal so each fireteam has an option to get at least has 1 AT4. EDIT: Forgot to mention that fireteam members can still get light AT in form of m72 LAW, but it's noticeably less powerful than AT4.

Even though additional channels will probably help, the issue comes from the fact that ASL is played as both SL and CMD role at the same time. SL should only be responsible for his 2 fireteams (unless CMD is KIA), not Alpha+Bravo+Vortex+MAT+whatever extra team is there. Command role exists for a reason and that is to coordinate the different assets available. It may be due to how role selection is handled right now, but unfortunately I don't have any potential solutions to propose...

Considering how powerful AT4 are, we could just remove MAT all together and leave HAT as the only support AT team. The difference between MAT and a rifleman with an AT4 is not that big, just slight increase on distance, HAT on the other hand has lock on capabilities, thermals and greatly increased range. I wouldn't mind removing AAR and adding a 2nd Rifleman with an AT4 as @Colsta suggested. For the same reasons: 1) it's a pretty useless role 2) I really don't like hearing "ammo bitch" every time there's an AAR present... And since we mentioned fiream mobility, I'm going to ask again to replace marksman with another speciality role like grenadier. You can add a marksman to SL team.

Renaming one of the Vortex to something else is needed for sure. We have Torch and Hammer instead of Torch 1 and Torch 2. I don't see a reason it can't be applied to air units aswel. The main issue with merging support teams into 1-2 general teams is that players won't know what team they're joining from the lobby. It may lead to frustration for some players. For example, a player wants to play as MAT (AT role) and joins FSG, but it turns out that current FSG is HMG. In this case his desire of being an AT unit isn't fulfilled and he may leave the server or have undesired experience. Then there's also a concern of how do you divide the team if you want them to be both MAT and HMG? (As I understand, the idea is that a single FSG can have several roles at the same time - hence the 5-6 players per FSG). I'm pretty sure that most CMD/SL players would prefer having exact markers on the map to locate each support team. Instead of having 2 teams of 5-6 players, I think having 3 teams of 3 players (lead, gunner, assistant) would work better. Essentially just renaming current MAT, HAT, MMG into generic FSG teams and let the CMD/SL dictate which weapons they'll use. Since we're on topic of redesigning the structure, I'd like to suggest moving Marksman slots from Fireteams into SL (conserving 1 marksman per squad) or merge them with FSG teams - creating proper sniper/recon units. It's just a personal preference: I like teams moving together instead of leaving people behind (marksman), which is done fairly frequently on the server (the leaving behind part).

This is the biggest issue, and not only in gamenights, but in EU3 in general - too much wasted time. It could be from technical issues, mission setting, mission planning, movement, etc. Another issue is that the obective was way too easy. So all that time we wasted earlier wasn't rewarded by an interesting mission/objective/firefight either. We had ~20players assaulting a town with <20ai: I was part of Bravo (Recon) and I only saw 2 static AI on top of a roof, 2 AI patrolling and a couple of manned vehicles. There probably were some extra AI that I didn't see, but not many. That town could've been cleared with a single fireteam, especially considering it was night time, we had NVGs and AI didn't; hell, at that point it could've been cleared by a single man if he knew what he was doing. But at least this time we had decent-good FPS, so that's an improvement...