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...

It is fine if you're going for a realistic gameplay, but for the type of gameplay we have on EU3 it may be too "strict". FYI: Normal jog (weapon lowered) uses less stamina than moving with raised weapon and slow jog (lowered weapon + C (combat pace)) doesn't use any stamina, even recovers it slowly. So when you're traversing a medium-long distances where the amount of enemies is low or none (like from LZ towards border of AO or after completing it) you should move with weapon lowered and consider slow jog. That said, I would suggest testing different load values (0.5-0.75 seems to be decent) and recovery factor (1.5-2). E: those values are for ACE Advanced Fatigue module. Clarifying just in case.

I wasn't there, so I may be wrong on something, but here's my opinion regarding issues like this in general. As I understand, Origins made a fireteam (or a squad?) run the length of a runway up and down as punishment for "fucking around" (I assume it's the more or less typical behaviour we see in EU3, where people don't listen or just ignore SL/TL). Now, this kind of punishment may be done in Real Life or some Milsim/Realism communities, but EU3 is a fairly casual server compared to more structured Units. By making a whole team run for however long it was, you're not only punishing that team, but probably someone else as well (It could be the whole server if the team is needed somewhere). Also, running isn't a real punishment in this game, all you have to do is press a button. I consider this more of a waste of time than anything else and EU3 already wastes a good amount of time during normal gameplay, which may be the reason why people start pissing around to begin with - boredom. If someone's breaking a rule, follow your admin procedure, which I assume is the warn-kick-ban. Deal with it fast so you can continue with normal gameplay. If you have a moderator strategy, then either follow it or change it. There is no point of having it if you're not going to enforce it. Hopefully people will stop pissing around after they notice that it's actually punished.

Bug/issue: quick loading gear doesn't load gun attachments. Can place the attachments in your inventory (vest/backpack) and save, but it's not really optimal.

Quick thing: the difficulty setting on the server seems to be on recruit right now - crosshair, enemy unit appear on the map, etc.

It's the reality, no matter how admins feel about that comment. Most people won't read the rules, and from those that do read, many won't remember them. I also have to agree with Jux about the attitude towards new players. More than once I've seen "veteran" players try to ""teach"" new players about the rules by yelling at them, saying that they can't use their current weapon/camo/whatever. That's just being arrogant, not helpful. If you don't want to spend a couple of minutes talking to the new guy and actually point him in the right direction, you're better off not speaking at all. That kinda applies on the main topic here - the Password and TS. Instead of preventing people from joining, why not help those who forget to launch TS, switch channel in TS or have issues with ACRE+TS keybinds? A couple of days ago there was a new guy on the server who had issues with keybinds and couldn't speak ingame. The answer he got from players ingame was something along the lines of "You can't play right now. Disconnect, fix your stuff and then come back". How someone who has never used ACRE before is supposed to know where the problem is and/or how to fix it? Damn, I'm going off-topic again... What are the advantages of putting a password? I personally have a hard time finding anything positive.

It's not that people give away the password, but the fact that you don't really need to read the rules to get to the form. "3. Read the rules and guidlines and fill out the form to get the password." When people see that, all they have to do is look for a link inside the post with the rules and it's not that hard considering it's quite visible - http://prntscr.com/apcb5r .

I don't think there is any need for a password. I haven't had any issues with people joining who don't have TS. Most "issues" I've had is with people who don't know how to use ACRE properly (Proper keybindings in TS/ingame, ACRE shortcuts, etc.) Also, keep in mind that if someone joins without TeamSpeak they get a black screen with a message saying they MUST be in TS in order to play - http://prntscr.com/apbd5m . On top of that, putting a password on the server may discourage new players to try EU3. What I think may happen: A - Server without password 1) Player sees another open AW Server - eu3 2) Finds out it has mod and installs them to give it a try. 2) Joins the server without TS (for whatever reason) 3) Sees the black screen - http://prntscr.com/apbd5m 4a) Joins TS and plays 4b) Doesn't want to play with TS and leaves Result: potential new player in EU3 B - Server with password 1a) Player sees a locked/passworded AW server. 1b) Player has his filter setup to not show passworded servers - never sees EU3. 2) Assumes it is private or for testing and doesn't bother to see what it is about Result: potential new player lost because of the password Those examples probably are extreme, but what I want to illustrate is that there are players who directly ignore or don't see passworded servers. AW offers public servers for everyone to join, I see no reason to limit that with passwords. Of course there will be people who will investigate what EU3 is even after seeing it is a passworded server, but I think those players are a minority.

I've tested some things in the Arsenal and the results are rather interesting. In general, SMA weapons - HK416, HK417, MK18, M4A1 - have similar or even identical ballistics between themselves and are comparable to CUP m110, which is a Marksman rifle.

There is some discussion about it here: http://www.ahoyworld.co.uk/topic/5388-making-the-fight-harder/ , ASR AI is used as example.

You want an alternative? You got one - a slightly modded gamenight to get familiar with the core mods (namely ACE and ACRE). After that there could be a proper discussion about new server, depending on the attendance and the general opinion of players. You want an advice? I think you got that too - on how/why ACRE wouldn't work on the setting you're proposing because it requires a set chain of command to work properly; otherwise it is a clusterfuck. And guess what, both of thosse things were provided by EU3 regulars, and yet you say that EU3 players in this thread have not been constructive or didn't give reasons to why it wouldn't work. Maybe it is the other way around - I haven't seen a good reason as to why it WOULD work. Also, why there's a very limited amount of people from EU1/2 replying here? There should be many more replies from different players If there was a real need or desire for a server like you suggest. Right now it seems like a rather small player base wants a server that fits them. I feel like you're calling people toxic just because they disagree with you and that is not how it works.