Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

    20.00 GBP 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • Steam Name

Profile Information

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. "I never carrots... US Secretary... I never carrots... weapons & supplies ... never abandon converted carrots."
  2. "Hey, I just met you, and this is crazy, but there's a phone-detonated IED, so Kalae Me Maybe" Attack on Kalae - 2020-7-29 Alpha 2, Rifleman (AT), Green squad My account of events, which may be accurate: A mad dash to load up vics, absolute hive of activity, followed by a long old convoy to the objective alongside Hammer, with a few IEDs spotted and dealt with. We achieved early eyes on Kalae Village, dismounted and approached in defillade to go loud a bit closer to the enemy. During this I got domed, but while I waited for reinsert everyone else got killed as well. After reinserting, I think we lost Hammer and I unknowingly had a broken radio. We managed to capture Kalae Village North (taking some losses to a VBIED set off by a guy with a dead-mans switch and then to blue-on-blue caused when the bomber was being targeted by another squad... didn't help that the victim was CLS!) Highlight is me hitting the wheels of a vehicle from 550m with an RPG that only ranged out to 300m. Regrouped, discovered the broken radio situation, remounted and moved to a plateau further down the mountain. Dug in some trenches behind smoke and proceeded to draw a lot of attention, with primary threats being an M113 and a sniper, as well as a few attacks via defillade from Kalae Base. I launched about 5 RPGs at the M113 and decided that I shouldn't quit the day job... We made good use of vehicle mounted guns in the attack on the base, but lost both vehicle gunners during the attack (I was one) and so I missed the rest of that objective. I then ditched the RPG part of my loadout in favour of light weight. Reinserted again, near the radio tower, and retraced steps down to the base, then down into Kalae Village South, where we were working on regrouping with the surviving Alpha force as we ended up in a literal minefield. Patched up 2 engineers who had made a good attempt at disarming a mine, and learned a lesson about spacing. Regrouped with Alpha. Was given a functioning radio, and proceeded to Kalae HQ with 1 Gaz (the other remained at Kalae Base), where as far as I can tell a total MASCAS happened. Reinserted (see the theme?) at Kalae Village North, hoofed it down to Kalae HQ, where we transported down to Kalae HQ and linked up with Bravo. We had achieved Phase line Blue. The next target was Kalae Barracks. Under cover of smoke and mortars, we pushed across the runway and captured small outposts en route to the HQ, providing cover from incursions from other local objectives whilst Bravo went capturing the objective. An Su-25 attempted to take off but was dispatched rapidly. Whilst this was in place we received word of a counterattack to the West, focussed on the HQ we had previously taken, so we moved to a small outpost East of the runway and suppressed some enemies, and then... my connection failed. Feedback type stuff: Other than the comms issues (that I and Riverwolf experienced), which pissed me off immensely, I enjoyed the op. It did feel at times that we were not particularly working in concert with other elements, the later assault with Bravo across the runway was a highlight in multi-squad co-operation and a big morale boost after a challenging OP. Don't know the nitty gritty of how comms were between squads because I don't monitor 30. I'd rather not take an RPG in the short term. I think I am more effective in other roles. I would like it if we have a Forward Operating Base that is close to the front line as the convoy there and the reinserts were lengthy. The pacing was very strange as a result, and it was theoretically possible to spend 20 minutes out of the battle and immediately have to respawn. Some weird thing went on with TFAR. Ok, let's hear your side of the story...
  3. Waiting for the overlap between gamers and lighting nerds to get significant enough to cause RGBWW to become "a thing" in PC parts.
  4. As some of you may be aware I've started taking turning left seriously in iRacing, and I'm currently rocking a Bobby Labonte lookalike skin on the ovals. Is anyone creatively inclined able to make an Ahoyworld skin for my car? I have attached the template and I can chuck some pennies at you (or theAW servers ) for it. I plan to race this car for at least the next 3 months or so and then I'll have to see about getting the skin adapted to the car(s) I end up in next season... (and eventually for the Daytona 500...! Of course... unless the skin makes me a massive target on track) 24_template_NW09.zip
  5. I've worked out that taking too many bandages is a false economy anyway without someone to put blood in you
  6. I don't care what map I'm on particularly, so I just voted purely on a factions basis.
  7. Can we reduce server workload by adding more storage buildings? Eg. 1 (indestructible maybe?) StorageBladder_01_fuel_sand_F could hold 1000 fuel (or other number) and cost 1000 fuel to purchase, so no fuel would be lost... but the server would have 9 fewer objects to keep track of. Would need to make sure that people can't run the fuel bladder empty and then recycle it for 500 fuel. Other objects we could use for larger amounts of fuel are: Land_dp_smallTank_F, Land_dp_smallTank_old_F, Land_dp_bigTank_F, Land_dp_bigTank_old_F Could also achieve something similar with Land_Cargo10, Land_Cargo20 and Land_Cargo40 container variants (and maybe even Land_ContainerLine variants) for dealing with "Supplies". Not sure what objects would make suitable replacements for "ammo".
  8. As long as it is not synchronised to reality, so that people who only can play at certain hours get a chance to play in day and nights occasionally.
  9. Using a word I used means this is probably in response to one of my suggestions. I may have used the wrong word - consider "appointment" instead. "The attack on Kavala is happening at 1900 UTC Tuesday, see you there!" (posted in-forum, as a thread in a Liberation subforum type space) would allow as many people as possible to get involved (because they would know about the attack) rather than excluding them. It would then happen at that time, regardless of player count, but at least people had the opportunity to show up if they were able to... Edit: and I understand my place organisationally here. I can be a loud mouth but nobody is actually obliged to listen or act on what I say, and I will play whatever game modes AW offers that I enjoy regardless of whether my feedback actually makes it into how the game modes are implemented, unless it's some properly broken stuff (though I would probably not enjoy something SO broken so that issue solves itself).
  10. The important thing to note is that I would want 99% of small playercount attempts to be suicide missions, even with late-game support assets. I am not a fan of rules that restrict player's ability to get themselves into horrible scrapes. I think suitably brutal gameplay mechanics can do the job of rules without needing the rules to exist. I suggest that we would have a subforum dedicated to "in-game" matters like longer-term goals/base planning/etc, and attacks on key points (7 cities, military outposts that give opportunity to buy new hardware)/pushes for new FOBs can be run as if they are a standard Zeus game night or Saturday MSO mission (maybe including a server restart 30 mins before the scheduled attack to help server FPS, stop people camping slots.) I would use a subforum because discord moves fast, nobody wants to scroll up 200 messages to find the plan etc, and the information needs to be publicly retrievable and people need to be able to get involved without necessarily having to be there at the specific plan the discussion is taking place (and to prevent people getting a bit conspiracy-theory about stuff). Added in the current version is an auto-kick script for anyone that kills too many civilians in a given time. I understand the reasoning for this, completely - but we are lacking a way to lower civilian trust in us. At the moment we have 2 metrics to look after to keep us from increased aggression - Enemy Awareness (Orange ! ) and Civilian trust (or whatever it is - the green house symbol). 1 of those veers between 40% and 95ish%, at which point we use a gameplay mechanic (FOB Hunts, or Convoy ambushes) to decrease it. But the other one is static 90+%, and so we never really do anything with those potential side missions - just help the odd civvy at the end of a town capture. If we were allowed to annoy the local population (not ideal) to the point where we need to make them trust us more, we would unlock more gameplay possibilities for people to do when the server's quiet. Trolls/griefers could be dealt with by a vote kick or similar (worst case, !admin)? Nb. IIRC we've only ambushed 1 convoy. FOB Hunts are simple and lucrative, I think there could be some rebalancing to encourage variety.
  11. The difficulty with this rule is enforcing it - the nature of low-pop servers is there aren't many people watching. If the game mechanic (scaling) can be tweaked to make it possible to attack those capture points (and theoretically capture them, but you need to be godlike) at low player counts, that would be more natural... and I would be a bit miffed if I turned up to find a massive objective had been taken overnight and a FOB built by a tiny number of players, but I would be bloody impressed at the same time - they would definitely have earned the opportunity to build.
  12. Very minor - when loading resources onto trucks (through mousewheel) the hint dialog calls "fuel barrels" "ammo crates". I don't know if it does it for the other type of resource as I haven't moved those since. Hopefully the ballistics thing will be partly solved by Skull's suggestion earlier in the thread. This isn't a mechanical/code related thing, but can we organise major ops (eg. city attacks) via the forum, as if it were a Zeus gamenight (but maybe not in the Friday or Sunday slot), or is the plan pretty much left to PlatCo in-server in realtime? Edit: And yes, I love the idea that we won't JUST be liberating Altis and will at some point have the L85A3 to use, memelike qualities of plastic-work aside!
  13. I do not think we would suffer arty abuse if we maintain the standard of play in game that we have seen since mission start. I know it is early days, but I trust everyone who has been in command so far to not cheese the game mechanics. As for the tactical ping thing, you make a good point there! Hell, as long as there's boots on the ground calling in the destruction (be it CAS or arty) as permitted by command, it doesn't matter too much how it's located... I'm sure with a rangefinder and a bearing and a GPS a 2035 soldier could do the equivalent of a tactical ping in real life, come to think about it. If we're both on later today Stanhope, happy to do some arty fire missions on request to see how well it works in battle.
  14. I want to thank Murph for posting this all btw - his point 3 here is a lot of the structure behind my thoughts about tactical ping and artillery. I think artillery is more akin to piloting than to sniping, when it relates to "how bad arty/piloting can ruin other people's fun instead of just the operator's". Point 7 is a very good observation, I'm hoping that liberation becomes a place that supports people trying different roles and gameplay styles. It can be a low pressure way to try leadership roles, or for people in leadership roles to try different tactics, and the squad flexibility that having unspecialised roles offers is GREAT. Point 10 is given. Stan, you're like a duck. All calm above the surface but underwater your feet are working like crazy. Gotta say this is making my lockdown work ethic look crap! Edit: This page - https://ace3mod.com/wiki/feature/scopes.html - shows "Simplified zeroing". If we are having fancy ACE ballistics (which would be awesome for arty purposes), it appears possible to make it "not too arcane" for snipers to pick up a rifle and pick off EI.
  15. Actual question is bolded, in the rest of my (slightly tired) rambling about artillery (which is really just to frame the question in some context). Myself, Wookz, Sho and River have spent a couple of hours getting to grips with artillery. There were only the 4 of us on server, which is a perfect time to make mistakes. I am happy to sit at FOB Bravo with the gun and help get anyone up to speed on hitting what they are supposed to. It is fairly simple, but if it goes wrong it can wipe any squad within 9km which would be disastrous for operations. It only takes 5 minutes - like ACE Medical - to get the rudiments down. Using range tables is a good way to keep on the ball with the role as well - far more enjoyable than the point-and-click computer of IA3 usage (edit: except for the HIMARS which is a fancy artillery shotgun rocket thing with only an artillery computer option). I think it is perfectly fine for this particular weapon to be a bit "milsim" compared to infantry work, because it's a mean bit of kit and it is enjoyable in a much less "instant gratification" way. Now, the meat and potatoes of the thing. This can make an FOB Hunt a 1-troop operation. This is possibly a bit... exploitable. "I'll just find an FOB to lower the awareness level and get FSG to flatten it". Easy 20%. Can tactical ping markers be made invisible on the map? If a 1 man "team" wants to go on an FOB hunt with FSG back at base to deliver the ordnance, I think that should be allowed (sneaky spec ops stuff)... but I think it would be reasonable to expect them to do a BIT of triangulation work before they mark the target on the map. This ties in with the "I think it is perfectly fine for this weapon to be a bit milsim" point. It just feels a bit cheesy to mark the FOB by tactical-pinging and then looking for the marker on the map. As for the use of tactical ping in squads - we have "point", and we have radio, and we have the ability to mark on the map. I don't think infantry work will suffer too much by losing the tactical ping. This may spawn some debate. I'm just chucking this out there - I am not married to the result. Either way I am happy to play as an artilleryman, as long as I am only firing on military installations!
  • Create New...