Jump to content

FSG: Lets talk about it.


Recommended Posts

So uh, what i've been seeing recently is the millisecond alpha 1 is full, the "meme FSG team 2.0" gets 5 people slotted up. and I dont want to speak for other people, so I will just list my personal issues with how this team has been used recently (and why I ask for there not to be an FSG at all when im asl)

 

1: They tend to take a very loose interpretation of ASL's orders, for example if being ordered to stay 200-300m behind ASL they will be 400m "near" ASL (usually in front)

2: They throw a tantrum when they don't get to do what they want, often disconnecting instead of switching to a more needed role like alpha, quoting how asking for more people in ASL than FSG is killing all fun possible.

3: the role seems less capable of dealing with threats than an alpha squad nowadays, I don't know if this is because of bugs like the one affecting the new MAAWS, but from my own experience they sure do seem to become "combat ineffective" after killing 1 tank a lot.

4: this is my biggest problem with the team, they take up 5 players. the server doesn't get as many people as it used too at peak times, and having 5 of them go into a separate team just guts Alpha's already limited effectiveness, causing the rest of the players to be stuck in what feels like an impossible situation (read: 3 alpha guys pinned down by 2 bmp's with no AT while FSG is calling for an evac because they are combat ineffective) 

 

My solution to this "problem" is to tell FSG to go alpha / bravo as an inf squad, and have 3 pilots, 2 in a heavy CAS bird that can engage the kind of targets FSG is supposed too and one dedicated to transport. this provides the same level of "lol point and click no skill izi pizi tank dead" that a well equipped FSG team has, but only taking up 2 people instead of 5. And they have much less difficulty dealing with the specific target you want to die.

 

again, I'm a shit ASL, and this is an opinion. so pls no hate ktnx <3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, hobnob11 said:

1: They tend to take a very loose interpretation of ASL's orders, for example if being ordered to stay 200-300m behind ASL they will be 400m "near" ASL (usually in front)

My recommended solution: Fill out a player report because they broke Rule 3 (Listen to the Chain Of Command.)!:) Maybe they´ll then learn their lesson and if not just keep filling reports if they keep breaking rules until they change their behaviour or are banned.:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, hobnob11 said:

1: They tend to take a very loose interpretation of ASL's orders, for example if being ordered to stay 200-300m behind ASL they will be 400m "near" ASL (usually in front)

If you see a team doing something they shouldn't and you're in command, tell them. If they don't comply tell them more direct. After you've done this and they still don't comply (almost never happens in my experience) get an admin.

 

3 hours ago, hobnob11 said:

2: They throw a tantrum when they don't get to do what they want, often disconnecting instead of switching to a more needed role like alpha, quoting how asking for more people in ASL than FSG is killing all fun possible.

3 hours ago, Noah_Hero said:

Fill out a player report because they broke Rule 3 (Listen to the Chain Of Command.)!

Except in my opinion they didn't. Apart from that you obviously can't force people to pick a slot, this rule was (originally) never intended to apply to slotting: you could fill any role the rules allowed you to, no permission from acting command needed. This seems to have changed recently, but when I command I hold the principle that the only thing I do when a slot is filled I don't want/need, I just mention it to the player(s) occupying the slot(s), but never force them out of it. I adjust and make it work.

 

I don't agree with 3, I guess it depends on the players.

Point 4 is valid, but a 5 man FSG team already isn't allowed without a full alpha, so if people follow the rules that shouldn't happen.

 

3 hours ago, hobnob11 said:

My solution to this "problem" is to tell FSG to go alpha / bravo as an inf squad, and have 3 pilots, 2 in a heavy CAS bird that can engage the kind of targets FSG is supposed too and one dedicated to transport. this provides the same level of "lol point and click no skill izi pizi tank dead" that a well equipped FSG team has, but only taking up 2 people instead of 5. And they have much less difficulty dealing with the specific target you want to die.

As for your solution, I don't agree. A CAS bird is even more prone to misconduct than FSG is, speaking from experience. As for the "lol point and click no skill izi pizi tank dead", for an FSG team equipped with a SMAW or even a MAAWS to take down a target requires teamwork: someone gets the range, another makes sure that after the gunner fires a new round is supplied to the gunner.

 

In conclusion: just because some team isn't as effective as another doesn't mean that team needs to get killed off. If that was the case, we would all be flying jets, Apaches or driving tanks and IFVs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hobnob11 said:

1: They tend to take a very loose interpretation of ASL's orders, for example if being ordered to stay 200-300m behind ASL they will be 400m "near" ASL (usually in front)

2: They throw a tantrum when they don't get to do what they want, often disconnecting instead of switching to a more needed role like alpha, quoting how asking for more people in ASL than FSG is killing all fun possible.

3: the role seems less capable of dealing with threats than an alpha squad nowadays, I don't know if this is because of bugs like the one affecting the new MAAWS, but from my own experience they sure do seem to become "combat ineffective" after killing 1 tank a lot.

4: this is my biggest problem with the team, they take up 5 players. the server doesn't get as many people as it used too at peak times, and having 5 of them go into a separate team just guts Alpha's already limited effectiveness, causing the rest of the players to be stuck in what feels like an impossible situation (read: 3 alpha guys pinned down by 2 bmp's with no AT while FSG is calling for an evac because they are combat ineffective) 

 

My solution to this "problem" is to tell FSG to go alpha / bravo as an inf squad, and have 3 pilots, 2 in a heavy CAS bird that can engage the kind of targets FSG is supposed too and one dedicated to transport. this provides the same level of "lol point and click no skill izi pizi tank dead" that a well equipped FSG team has, but only taking up 2 people instead of 5. And they have much less difficulty dealing with the specific target you want to die.

 

again, I'm a shit ASL, and this is an opinion. so pls no hate ktnx <3

 

I can clearly see that this is no doubt going to backfire at me because god forbid I can allow myself to have fun from time to time rather than donate it to others.

 

1. Sometimes a loose interpretation is required for the safety of the team designated with supporting the other. It's never wrong to "twist the rules" so the speak and employ a tactic other to the one ordered if it allows the supporting element to get the upper hand in combat and complete their task. The same would go if I was Platoon Commanding and told Alpha to do something and they did it differently to what I said, as long as the mission objective has been completed, there should be a congratulations in order, not an argument. Better yet if these tactic changes save men. Not saying that I do this all the time and that I disrespect a leading element, I'll do what I'm told, but just expect others to do stuff like this to do their job. If maneuvering at their own discretion becomes so much of an issue that it prevents the other from doing their duties or if it puts someone in immediate danger, these actions should be reviewed.

 

2. I will say that I do from time to time have a little tantrum, I only do so because I want to try something new, whether this be Recon within the FSG team or try out a heavy weapon I haven't used in a while. Going Alpha is something I can always do, going FSG is not. But I will do what I'm told even if it requires a kick up the backside. I won't threaten to leave though, I do know some people that do but that's not who I am. Going Alpha rather than FSG does not kill all the fun, sometimes in fact it's quite the opposite, having limited to NO supporting elements can make an engagement very difficult and I for one enjoy the challenge. But by contrast, I would like to try new things on the server and I do get upset when I get shouted at for trying to change things up. However I will listen at the end of the day, sometimes it just takes that nudge, it's who I am.

 

3. Depends on the soldier, depends on the team. 2-3 men in FSG can wreck havoc and cause more damage than a full alpha squad and other times it's completely the opposite. It boils down to this: You employ your troops correctly, everyone gets a slice of the pie. However, just because everyone gets a slice doesn't mean that the mission will be completely successful. Sometimes it requires the sacrifice of gameplay to a few to save the many and I respect this, henceforth I would like to Recon in FSG as I would not be required to fire my gun but better yet, give Alpha the intel to get the most out of their op. awww what a nice guy Mini is.

 

4. I understand this, and I understand that 5 men in FSG shouldn't be allowed until we get something along the lines of a a full Alpha Squad. I never asked people to join FSG when I do go FSG though, it appears some people just join my team and fill it up. It's not my fault, some people just don't understand the difference between a leader, a specialist and an assistant and I'm not naming names. The server does indeed not get a high population these days, it's not the glory days of 25-30+ daily anymore but we help survive the server and build it's population by pulling together, not apart. Debates and arguments are good to help build new rules and what not from time to time, but too much enforcement causes the server to fall into a very niche gameplay style with little room for expansion, the opposite of what the server was originally famed for.

 

I can see how your solution may be better, but thought before rational judgement is required. The FSG team should not suffer just because of a few bad eggs and a few bad stories, these things do not even get CLOSE to scraping the surface of what this team has done good in the past. We all have amazing stories, most of mine are from specialist support roles. Seeing a team such as this get strangled and cut off to further employ the same old day to day alpha gameplay would be sad considering these small circumstances.

 

My solution, give reasoning behind everything, no "I want this" or "this is bad because I say so." Be polite and explain logically why something isn't going to work, also, get the majority vote and not just the vote of the man in charge. After all, the man in charge should care about all of his men and take their interests to heart.

 

My response isn't a rant nor a look for trouble, just explaining what I believe should be done after my extensive service in the server.

 

P.S You're not a bad ASL, someone who is playing ASL and going to lengths such as these to limit support roles in an attempt to give more gameplay to Alpha is obviously passionate about his/her team. However, I believe these points to be mostly irrelevant given they are taken from a small time frame and judged too rationally.

 

Just my 2 cents, do with it as you want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This post is not an accurate, universal representation of FSG and only loosely relates to some players.

 

Actions against the FSG role itself would be extremely unorthodox , however, as some have said (such as Jochem and Noah), actions against the players themselves is fair enough.

 

The points made in this argument is that FSG should be altered to the player base, instead of players learning how to correctly and efficiently abide by the rules/roles (which in my eyes is a terrible idea).

 

Long story short, I understand the dislike that Alpha shares over the implementation or use of FSG, but its NEVER the role itself's fault, blame the players using it and deal with them accordingly (do not blame FSG and change it due to this).

 

You can ASL however you please, but understand that when FSG is used correctly according to the role/ruleset, it's an extremely teamwork-orientated role, using coherence between Alpha (unlike Vortex and Rambler, in my opinion).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i have a few ideas on how to fix the FSG problem

IDEA 1 lock fsg until alpha is full and make a rule that if there are to be FSG before there is a full alpha there needs to be ASL and ADMIN approval (the admin is there to make Shure that FSG does not snake their way around ASL,s orders) like the time when asl told FSG to go alpha and they decided to respawn after the ao to slot back op to FSG without approval and then slowed down the planning and deployment process to the point where ASL left due to him not wanting to deal with them anymore.

 

IDEA 2 remove FSG and replace the marksman and the rifle man with a weapons specialist and a assistant

 

IDEA 3 remove FSG and give every one a M72

 

IDEA 4 remove FSG and  restructure the entire squad system in a way that the FSG gruppe gets integrated in to the alpha teams

 

 

PS this is how i usealy react to seen fsg bean filled with out ASL,s aproval

Spoiler

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi folks,

 

Thanks for this discussion.  It's topical and time because the AWE Moderators have been discussing it intently, and we are going to proceed with a few changes.

 

Background, and the problem.

 

The original idea behind expanding the HAT & MAT teams was to create a single, unified team to provide a variety of support options to infantry teams.  To that end, HAT, MAT and Torch to some degree were unified into FSG as a single team.  The intention was to allow that team to have access to a flexible range of support options.

 

The problem has been that in practice, it hasn't worked out as intended.  The rules for slotting up into FSG have been poorly interpreted, there are often times when FSG goes out without a squad leader, making coordination extremely difficult, and people have flocked to FSG without populating Alpha first.  I'm not looking to place blame on anyone - those are fun toys to play with, and if you've played a lot as infantry, of course you want a different experience.  The problem is that the resulting chaos and ill communication that results in efforts to populate FSG have created a negative environment.

 

Next steps.

 

1) Effective in Stiletto version 0.22, FSG will be disbanded.

2) A new role in the infantry teams will be created - Rifleman Anti-Tank, taking the place of the Grenadier.  The Rifleman AT will have access to all the same heavy anti-tank weaponry available to the FSG specialist: for the Western factions, the BAF Javelin, the RHS MAAWS, the RHS SMAW, and for the first time, the BAF N-LAW.

3) Torch will be re-instituted as a second armor squad.

 

The Platoon Commander will still have the ability to create custom squads.  If there is a mission-specific need for a specialized support group (Sniper, Mortar, etc) the commander can still select FSG specialists from the list of roles to create a custom squad.

 

To respond to some points:

 

Quote

Apart from that you obviously can't force people to pick a lost, this rule was (originally) never intended to apply to slotting: you could fill any role the rules allowed you to, no permission from acting command needed.

 

I do agree with this, except FSG did come with some requirements about what needed to be filled before you could take the role - which was part of the problem, as that was not being followed well.  Thus, by removing this squad and streamlining the roles, we remove this problem.

 

55 minutes ago, J0hnson said:

The points made in this argument is that FSG should be altered to the player base, instead of players learning how to correctly and efficiently abide by the rules/roles (which in my eyes is a terrible idea).

 

The problem is that the rules have been unclear from the get-go, and impossible to enforce in a meaningful way. Players and moderators constantly poke players in FSG about following those rules. And when Alpha players disconnect because FSG isn't working well, you now have a combat ineffective Alpha, which should be prompting FSG players to reslot, and they don't. There's no easy fix for this current setup, and I won't lose any sleep about seeing it go.

 

And honestly, everything that FSG can do will now be possible with the 2nd Infantry squad fire team (ie., Alpha 2).

 

- R

 

P.S. I'd like to add that a guideline we've discussed off and on, but haven't pulled the trigger on, is to allow Infantry teams to use light armored vehicles such as the LAV-25 and Stryker to provided mechanized infantry options, and save Hammer/Torch for more traditional heavy armor. This will close the loop on the necessity for FSG as that was one of its intended functions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not think creating a new role that goes around with anti-tank would be good. Anti-tank is very heavy, limiting what main weapon they can carry OR limiting the number of rounds they carry meaning they are less effective against the armour they are meant to stop. I approve of getting rid of the grenadier role however, grenades are very rarely used and I feel there is a reluctance to use them without a commanders permission which makes the grenadier feel kind of enslaved whilst everyone else can go whilly nilly with their assault rifles.

 

I think FSG should remain. Sure replacing the grenadier role with AT is a good move, but they will lack the amount of munitions FSG can have (if they take a crate of ammo with them). FSG provides the mass anti-armour role that a single rifleman trying to balance a good rifle with his ability to counter armour never will. 

 

I also advise that if FSG should remain, the rules for FSG (and other roles) are made much more obvious.

 

Currently the link to the rules they should follow are buried at the bottom of the setup room (which very few people will actually read as they will either be: new and focusing on how they get in the EU 3 channel rather than what looking at the text OR a regular who will go into the setup room and straight back into Arma and never look at TS until he stops playing at which point he'll just close the program).

 

Also, attempting to search for "rules" on the forums results in a post that contains rules that aren't precise enough: 

 

The in-depth rules should be pinned somewhere more obvious (not in TS) as there are rules in the detailed rules that aren't mentioned there which affect most roles.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bruh, when I was ASL last, I ordered Nomad to carry Javelin and a M107 .50 caliber sniper rifle. I send them to a big hill a bit away from the reminder of the troops. 

 

Seemingly, this worked all to perfect.

 

But I agree on everything else, once they Nomad and is ordered to stick to the rear end of Alpha, they go rambo style ahead of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm personally both sad and relieved to see FSG go.  

 

Sad because it is a very useful role that has great potential.
Relieved because 90% of the time they are a pain in the ass to deal with as an ASL.  

The most recent most notable example i have about FSG being a pain in the ass to deal with:
We land at an LZ, immediately after dismounting i tell A1 and A2 to move up in a given direction.  Which they immediately started doing.  I and the rest of the ASL team stayed at the LZ to let A1 and 2 get a little bit in front of us.  I then hop on long range and tell FSG to stay 100-200 meters behind ASL.  We weren't taken any fire whatsoever, radio comms were clear, FSG acknowledged the order.  So far so good right?  Wrong.  The first thing FSG started doing was following A1.  I had still not moved.  I then proceeded to tell FSG to look behind them.  The SL of FSG realised he made a mistake and kindof said sorry.  His excuse was that he assumed that i already started moving.
Now that says something about the mindset of that SL.  If you don't want to take 2 seconds to pick up your Ctab and check you are waaaaay to eager to kill things.

 

Your first priority shouldn't be to kill things.  If you're here for the kills you might as well go to EU1.  Free kills for everyone there.  In my opinion AWE is about the teamwork.  If it's not let me know and i'll stick to EU1 from then onwards.

Later that same mission i asked FSG to engage something that was 5 m in front of me.  Seeing how they were 100-200m behind me that should be doable in a minute max 2 right?  Again wrong because FSG wasn't 100-200m behind me.  They had gone about to some place they pleased.  

 

 

FSG not listening to the orders they get is not the only thing that annoys me.  What annoys me personally the most is that they just get a weapon system without asking/discussing/talking to/with the ASL.  And when ASL then tells them "No i don't need an M107 or a mortar in a city" they proceed to give a million reasons why you do.  
Now if we were to have all the time in the world that wouldn't be a problem, but we don't.  So taking a weapon and then complaining about having to switch doesn't make anyone happy.  Not you not the SL and also not the rest of the server because they now have to wait on you.

Now all of these issues aren't that notable for the normal player, you only notice them either from the prolonged wait or because you're a type of SL.  So don't let that deter you from any roles but SL.  However as a SL you should be aware of these issues.

And it's not the role that's at fault, it's the people.  And the biggest problem isn't even that they do it, it's that said people are convinced that they aren't doing anything wrong.  

I am however sad to see FSG go.  I've often found them a very useful tool as a squad leader when the right people are in it. 
What are the right people in my opinion?  Well first of: they are not here to get kills.  They are here for the teamplay.  And they ask which weapon system they should take and possibly make a suggestion as well.  But they don't take one until they've reached an agreement with ASL (or platco).  


Looking at all of this combined i don't actually want FSG gone.  I'd rather have it stay and deal with the issues along the way.  Be that via training sessions, talking to each other, discussions on the forum, simply keeping hammering in orders until they finally get it or in very extreme cases by player reports.  

 

This doesn't mean i don't get why it was removed.  

 

Just my 2 cents as a player.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a shame to see FSG go I feel that the rules were not transparent enough the entirety of Nomad being 1 squad on the squad menu but then being told by a very disgruntled ASL that it was 2 squads was a recipe for disaster and we have seen the squad 5 strong whilst A1 only has 3. I think a more clear layout of the fire support group to show that it is infract several squads would prevent lots of the problems I will not claim that it will stop all of them there will always be people who will misuse role's but locking or cutting down the effectiveness of that role is not a valid solution. I think the current FSG loadout is the best we have seen ever with having the Arsenal mostly open to them it allows ASL to request exactly what is needed or for FSG teams to play smart and pack the weapon system the is perfect for that terrain. I also think that some of the blame lays on the shoulders of ASL with over enforcing what weapon system FSG uses. Name a time when FSG has used anything other than the MAAWS sometimes you might see a javelin but the only time I have seen FSG take a mortar is when I was the gunner and I packed a mortar myself. some people may remember when the FSG team I was a part of was shouted at repeatedly by ASL for about five minutes just because we had packed a SMAW and not a MAAWS. he did not care how many vehicle kills we had or how effective we were he wanted a MAAWS and that was the end of it.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       this is an incredibly divisive topic but just cutting support squads out of the server is not a solution its is trying to paint over the  problem and pretend it is not really there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you get multiple reports a week about FSG becoming a nuisance I wouldn't call it painting over the problem when so many people are so fed up with it. Besides, FSG is still there: behind the command request wall, where he can make the squad available when he feels the need for it, and not have to deal with arguments in base ruining everyone's experience. FSG is what killed FSG. Think about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Karate Pyjamas said:

When you get multiple reports a week about FSG becoming a nuisance I wouldn't call it painting over the problem when so many people are so fed up with it.

If I report the auto rifleman in Alpha 1 does that mean EU3 will be updated to remove Alpha 1? if someone is reported for deliberately ruining other peoples experience I expect the staff team to punish them if that person is in alpha 1 vortex or FSG it doesn't matter as staff you have been given the tools to punish people who are blatantly in the wrong and I hope that you will regardless of a persons role. -not trying to create an argument just a well informed debate.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overall I'm sad and yet relieved FSG was moved to Alpha.

 

Sad because the reasoning behind this was pretty rational, taken from a few snippets of gameplay and most points made about it was about the fucking playerbase rather than the actual role. But I'm happy it's in Alpha because at least they can't be cry babies, I suppose communication will be easier too if such a role was within Alpha itself as I imagine the person is going to be within 2 footsteps of alpha which will negate someone having to use CTAB to find someone that was over that 2 step mark.

 

Thanks for keeping the role at least, I did agree with Leo's idea of doing that seeing as I knew something was going to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Love everything about the changes apart from this:

 

14 hours ago, Ryko said:

P.S. I'd like to add that a guideline we've discussed off and on, but haven't pulled the trigger on, is to allow Infantry teams to use light armored vehicles such as the LAV-25 and Stryker to provided mechanized infantry options, and save Hammer/Torch for more traditional heavy armor. This will close the loop on the necessity for FSG as that was one of its intended functions.

 

Could we not, instead, just lower the requirements for Hammer and Torch due to the lack of a FSG? I understand that Alpha has (quite realistically, in fact) had an AT boost, but they will still lack the flexibility of FSG; which is where Hammer comes in.

 

An extended use of Hammer and Torch (especially with APCs) would greatly increase teamwork with Alpha. The LAV-25, Stryker and Bradley are all well balanced, infantry-support style vehicles and, in the right hands of course, would work exceptionally well with the new changes (now that Alpha will be filled primordially).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Numbnuts said:

this is an incredibly divisive topic but just cutting support squads out of the server is not a solution

It's not the perfect solution.  It however is a solution.  
But you can't expect the modded moderator team (which i'm not a part of) to come up with a perfect solution now can you?  Regardless of what you change you will piss off someone.  
 

9 hours ago, Numbnuts said:

its is trying to paint over the  problem and pretend it is not really there.

Dealing with the issue is pretending there isn't one?  Again it's not the perfect solution but what is the perfect solution?

 

9 hours ago, Numbnuts said:

It's a shame to see FSG go I feel that the rules were not transparent enough the entirety of Nomad being 1 squad on the squad menu but then being told by a very disgruntled ASL that it was 2 squads

It's 1 squad with 2 teams in it.  The first team (consisting of the SL, the 1st specialist and 1st assistant) is free for grabs when alpha 1 is full.  The second team (the other specialist and assistant) are free for grabs when alpha is combat effective.  

This is how it's said in the rule amendments:

Quote

Nomad 1 is available when Alpha 1 is full. When Alpha is combat effective, Nomad 2 may also be taken. The two Nomad teams should operate as one 5 man team.

Seems pretty clear to me.

 

9 hours ago, Numbnuts said:

Name a time when FSG has used anything other than the MAAWS

I've asked for an MMG as an ASL multiple times.  I've occasionally asked for a bolt action rifle.  I've even asked for the static .50 MG and TOW.  
When i was in FSG i've been told to take a bolt action rifle, a static 40mm launcher, a static .50 MG, a javelin, ...

If i'm an ASL and only have 1 votex and 1 FSG team they'll in 95% of cases be running with a MAAWS (or a SMAW) because if an MBT rolls up on us i'd like to be able to destroy it without having to get too close to it.  
If there is more than 1 vortex and 2 FSG teams i'll be more likely to ask/approve suggestions for less usual weapon systems.  But that's just because i know that a vortex in a jet will then be able to take those MBTs out.
To get back to the having fun thing:  yes it may be more fun for you to take a mortar over a MAAWS.  But as an ASL you've got to try and give everyone the same amount of 'fun'.  Now if everyone dies because there is no AT available how does one justify telling FSG to take a mortar (for example) over a MAAWS?  I personally don't like dying for that reason.

 

9 hours ago, Numbnuts said:

some people may remember when the FSG team I was a part of was shouted at repeatedly by ASL for about five minutes just because we had packed a SMAW and not a MAAWS.

Well how did you do that?  Did your SL agree on a MAAWS and then change to a SMAW without telling ASL?  Or did you ask ASL if you could take a SMAW?  

 

I personally don't care if you take a MAAWS or a SMAW.  I do care if we reach an agreement and then people change stuff behind my back.

I can honistly say that i have not once declined a request to take a SMAW instead of a MAAWS.  This simply because i've NEVER gotten that request.  I have had multiple occasions where we agreed on a MAAWS and in the field i see a SMAW.

 

9 hours ago, Numbnuts said:

Name a time when FSG has used anything other than the MAAWS sometimes you might see a javelin but the only time I have seen FSG take a mortar is when I was the gunner and I packed a mortar myself

You can always take ASL yourself and right those wrongs.  Right?  

 

9 hours ago, Numbnuts said:

he did not care how many vehicle kills we had or how effective we were he wanted a MAAWS and that was the end of it.    

Should he?  I mean really should he care about how much kills someone gets?   I personally hardly ever look at the scoreboard and certainly don't count how many kills i got.  
I've said it in my previous post and i'll say it again.  If AWE is just about getting kills let me know because i'll stick to EU1 from then on.  I can get more kills in less time there.  I always thought AWE was about the teamplay.  In which case it's more important to stick to something you agree on than to get the weapon system that'll get you most kills or looks the best.  

 

8 hours ago, Numbnuts said:

If I report the auto rifleman in Alpha 1 does that mean EU3 will be updated to remove Alpha 1?

Depends.  If you report several people over the course of several weeks to abuse a certain feature the AR has.  And all those claims are valid and you get another 5 people to do the same.  Then the modded mod team (not including me) might take a look into it.  
If you just report him once to get the role removed i doubt anything will happen.

 

8 hours ago, Numbnuts said:

if someone is reported for deliberately ruining other peoples experience I expect the staff team to punish them if that person is in alpha 1 vortex or FSG it doesn't matter as staff you have been given the tools to punish people who are blatantly in the wrong and I hope that you will regardless of a persons role.

Aren't they right now by doing this?  
The people who have an issue with the people that take FSG and make it a nuisance want FSG gone.  The modded mod team wants FSG gone.  As far as i can tell the only ones that want FSG to stay are the people that make FSG a nuisance.  So rather effective punishment in my opinion.

 

And it's not even gone.  It's just up to command to decide now whether or not he wants it. 

 

Just now, J0hnson said:

Could we not, instead, just lower the requirements for Hammer and Torch due to the lack of a FSG? I understand that Alpha has (quite realistically, in fact) had an AT boost, but they will still lack the flexibility of FSG; which is where Hammer comes in.

What i read is shifting the problem from one squad to another.  But that's just me.

 

1 minute ago, J0hnson said:

An extended use of Hammer and Torch (especially with APCs) would greatly increase teamwork with Alpha. The LAV-25, Stryker and Bradley are all well balanced, infantry-support style vehicles and, in the right hands of course, would work exceptionally well with the new changes (now that Alpha will be filled primordially).

Could being a key word.  Last game night in my opinion proved that that's in all likelihood not going to happen in the near future.  
At one point i literally heard over long range: "Right, torch is on freeroam trying to find enemies right now."  They simply left alpha behind, which at the time was surrounded.  Not really teamplay now is it?  Oh at the same time hammer was 200-300 m in front of alpha.  They weren't close to alpha covering them either with the body of the tank or simply with the MGs the thing has mounted all over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Stanhope said:

The most recent most notable example i have about FSG being a pain in the ass to deal with:
We land at an LZ, immediately after dismounting i tell A1 and A2 to move up in a given direction.  Which they immediately started doing.  I and the rest of the ASL team stayed at the LZ to let A1 and 2 get a little bit in front of us.  I then hop on long range and tell FSG to stay 100-200 meters behind ASL.  We weren't taken any fire whatsoever, radio comms were clear, FSG acknowledged the order.  So far so good right?  Wrong.  The first thing FSG started doing was following A1.  I had still not moved.  I then proceeded to tell FSG to look behind them.  The SL of FSG realised he made a mistake and kindof said sorry.  His excuse was that he assumed that i already started moving.
Now that says something about the mindset of that SL.  If you don't want to take 2 seconds to pick up your Ctab and check you are waaaaay to eager to kill things.

 

Your first priority shouldn't be to kill things.  If you're here for the kills you might as well go to EU1.  Free kills for everyone there.  In my opinion AWE is about the teamwork.  If it's not let me know and i'll stick to EU1 from then onwards.

I agree with your overall point about FSG but this is a very poor example.

 

Being the Weapon Specialist at the time, I can safely say that, from our perspective, the arguments you just made about how FSG is "a pain in the ass" are only vaguely relatable to the example you gave (chronologically);

 

- We moved about 50m in front of you onto the other side of the compound you were behind, which yes, was not your orders as you've said but can surly this simple, easily-fixed mistake cannot be used as an example of FSG's denial of orders or incoherence with Alpha. You corrected Mini, he accepted, and that was that. Nothing personal hopefully.

 

- I speak all of us in FSG at the time when I assure you that we were not "eager to kill things". We specifically let A1 step off in front of us as Mini told us to wait back, he told me exactly to "Let Alpha take point". We had only been out of the helicopter for about one minute, it's hardley like we ruined the AO, and in my opinion it actually went very well.

 

- As for us moving away from your position, I assume you mean when we moved round the other side of the military compound. I can promise you right now that this was one of the most reasonable actions on of the entire AO. ALL of alpha were stacking up by that Ifrit on the corner and that's where you wanted us, so that's where we stayed. From there we took out two, maybe three vehicles will great difficulty due to the lack of space and cover, so we decided to move. We were getting flanked from the rear as the PLA were phasing through the walls behind us, must be some new tech. This movement, however, while not your direct orders, saved us literally and saved us time. The vehicle you say that was 5m in front of you I can't actually remember but all facts aside we were in an extremely tight, urban location where we struggled to keep Inf. off our rear and Kamysh' off our front, whilst attempting to keep spacing from Alpha.

 

- As for your last point about teamwork, free kills and EU1, I think we both know that's a joke. We (being the FSG in question) strive for teamwork on EU3 every damn day, we certainly don't care about kill count. Saying we don't strive for teamwork will be

 the biggest oxymoron on the forums.

 

 

 

 

41 minutes ago, Stanhope said:

What i read is shifting the problem from one squad to another.  But that's just me.

I understand why you might think that but keep in mind one of the main problems stated was that FSG was often taken before Alpha was filled substantially. Now, however, Alpha will have no problem being filled due to the lack of other infantry roles and therefore, Hammer could be acceptable. If you are in reference to the over-extending problem, I think, especially if in a APC, a competent Hammer commander would certainly want to stick with Alpha, for their benefit and his own. You might be wondering "well how often do we get a competent Hammer commander?" well quite a lot actually; if a player takes Hammer they are normally quite experienced in that role and its use (unlike FSG where anyone with TL experience can lead it, which often explains the common over-aggressiveness of the role).

 

41 minutes ago, Stanhope said:

Could being a key word.  Last game night in my opinion proved that that's in all likelihood not going to happen in the near future.  
At one point i literally heard over long range: "Right, torch is on freeroam trying to find enemies right now."  They simply left alpha behind, which at the time was surrounded.  Not really teamplay now is it?  Oh at the same time hammer was 200-300 m in front of alpha.  They weren't close to alpha covering them either with the body of the tank or simply with the MGs the thing has mounted all over.

I said "would" not "could", and last gamenight (similarly to your example of FSG) is an un-comprehensibly bad example of why Hammer should NOT be used. Bear in mind that we were tasked with taking Kavala using M1A1s without TUSK it's no wonder it went badly. As for your point about how far ahead we (Hammer) were.

 

I've explained this gamenight a few times but here it is in-writing;

 

- When taking the Stadium, we were on both Alpha's AND Torch's phaseline, we were just using the MSR to not only keep spacing from Torch, but also to cover the road in case any T-72s rolled up (which they did, twice). We were NOT killed due to overextending, we were killed due an AI who cooked us with a 1961 RPG-7 rocket from 400m on the front of the turret. From what I could see about Torch, they looked like they were doing their job to me, staying in the open fields instead of attempting to push with Alpha into the stadium (which would have been much worse). I think they got T-72'd on the side anyway so not exactly their fault.

 

- As for the second death, again, we were NOT overextending, Alpha was about 200m behind us with Torch (so they were already covered) and then a Zues-controlled RPG gunner hit us in the side, again cooking us with a rocket that was over 40 years old (no hard feelings @kennychr).

 

- As for the third death in Kavala itself, keep in mind that Zeus WANTED us dead as we killed his entire T-90 platoon (no hard feelings @Karate Pyjamas) we held in the same 50m position for, no joke, about 10 mins, covering the MSR. Mini was CONSTANTLY saying how we were waiting for Alpha as he wanted the Inf. cover from the side. We then moved up when Alpha caught up and pushed over the bridge to hold a crossroad. I assume that push is what everyone refers to when they say that Hammer overextended in that Gamenight, but we didn't particularly fancy sitting the bridge itself with both sides exposed out to about 200m down the dry riverbed.

 

I was turned out in the loader seat for the majority of the time and there was never a point where I could not see an Alpha element.

 

 

 

To fully clarify, I do not write this with any intention of spite or bad will, I simply wanted to share my side of the points and examples you have given, just as you, yourself have done so.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Jochem said:

Except in my opinion they didn't. Apart from that you obviously can't force people to pick a slot, this rule was (originally) never intended to apply to slotting

You probably missunderstood me here. I did not meant that they broke Rule 3 because of their slots but because they constantly pushed past ASL even though they were told otherwise by ASL multiple times wich is just disobeying orders and therefore a breach of the CoC.:)

 

16 hours ago, Ryko said:

The problem is that the rules have been unclear from the get-go, and impossible to enforce in a meaningful way. Players and moderators constantly poke players in FSG about following those rules. And when Alpha players disconnect because FSG isn't working well, you now have a combat ineffective Alpha, which should be prompting FSG players to reslot, and they don't.

11 hours ago, Numbnuts said:

I feel that the rules were not transparent enough

To me the rules have been clear as it could be. Yes you might have to read through them a few times or look one up if you aren´t 100% sure but they are no way unclear. I mostly experienced that people just never read these rules and therefore had no idea how combat effective was defined in our ruleset for example. Of course it would be better if the squad rules would´ve been attached to the standard ruleset to make them easier to find but the link to them is even in the setup-room displayed. But since people most times don´t face a warning or something similar if they breake rules they tend to not be willing to read through them wich keeps the problem alive. If people would constantly get warnings, kicks, etc for breaking the rules I´d guess they would at some point reading them properly. So in conclusion I personally see the problem mainly on the end of enforcement wich is in my eyes often too weak but yes like others and myself already pointed out a few times it would make it easier for people to have all rules together in one ruleset.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, J0hnson said:

we were killed due an AI who cooked us with a 1961 RPG-7 rocket from 400m on the front of the turret

So?  I mean the M1A1 abrams was developed between 1986 and 1992.  The RPG-7 fires the PG-7VR round, which was designed in 1988 by the soviet union.  The round was specifically designed to penetrate explosive reactive armor.  It can penetrate up to 600mm of reactive armor, 750 if it's plain old armor.

Quote

For the base model M1 Abrams, Steven J. Zaloga gives a frontal armor estimate of 350 mm vs armor-piercing fin-stabilized discarding-sabot(APFSDS) and 700 mm vs high-explosive anti-tank warhead (HEAT) in M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank 1982–1992 (1993).[10] In M1 Abrams vs T-72 Ural (2009), he uses Soviet estimates of 470 mm vs APFSDS and 650 mm vs HEAT for the base model Abrams. He also gives the Soviet estimates for the M1A1, 600 mm vs APFSDS, and 700 mm vs HEAT.[9]

(from wikipedia: M1A1 and RPG-7)

 

But let's not forget that this is ArmA not real life.  That an RPG-7 can kill an abrams (in arma) in 1 rocket is a well known fact.  
 

1 hour ago, J0hnson said:

- As for us moving away from your position, I assume you mean when we moved round the other side of the military compound. I can promise you right now that this was one of the most reasonable actions on of the entire AO. ALL of alpha were stacking up by that Ifrit on the corner and that's where you wanted us, so that's where we stayed. From there we took out two, maybe three vehicles will great difficulty due to the lack of space and cover, so we decided to move. We were getting flanked from the rear as the PLA were phasing through the walls behind us, must be some new tech. This movement, however, while not your direct orders, saved us literally and saved us time. The vehicle you say that was 5m in front of you I can't actually remember but all facts aside we were in an extremely tight, urban location where we struggled to keep Inf. off our rear and Kamysh' off our front, whilst attempting to keep spacing from Alpha.

Actually i told alpha to fall back and let FSG deal with it.  
And maybe let me know that you're getting attack from the back so i can send an alpha team to deal with it?  I mean i can't smell that you're getting shot at.  And i can't hear it either because we were getting shot at from all directions.
And if i tell FSG to move up and engage something i assume that you realise that you can overtake alpha to do that.

 

1 hour ago, J0hnson said:

Being the Weapon Specialist at the time, I can safely say that, from our perspective, the arguments you just made about how FSG is "a pain in the ass" are only vaguely relatable to the example you gave

I recommend you take ASL a few times you'll realize why they are related.
 

1 hour ago, J0hnson said:

keep in mind one of the main problems stated was that FSG was often taken before Alpha was filled substantially. Now, however, Alpha will have no problem being filled due to the lack of other infantry roles and therefore, Hammer could be acceptable.

Now that doesn't make sense to me.  Just because people can't take FSG they'll rather take alpha if the requirements for hammer are lowered?  I mean they'll just go to hammer then.

 

1 hour ago, J0hnson said:

You might be wondering "well how often do we get a competent Hammer commander?" well quite a lot actually;

As far as i've seen we don't have a single player on AWE that actually has any proper experience with it.  That might just be me tho.

 

1 hour ago, J0hnson said:

As for the second death, again, we were NOT overextending, Alpha was about 200m behind us with Torch (so they were already covered) and then a Zues-controlled RPG gunner hit us in the side

Which you knew was there, it was called out over long range.  And instead of sending alpha to take that guy with the RPG out you decided to go do it yourself?  And then you dare say that you didn't overextended?  Overextending has nothing to do with absolute distances.  You can be 20m in front of alpha and be too far ahead.  You can be 500m in front of the and be within an acceptable range.

 

1 hour ago, J0hnson said:

Bear in mind that we were tasked with taking Kavala using M1A1s without TUSK it's no wonder it went badly.

Which you knew right?  I mean you can look at the tank and see it.  So how exactly is that an excuse for dying a lot?  That'd just lead to a change of tactics. With the bradley taking charge and the abrams in the back ready to deal with anything if shit hits the fan.  

But yea if you let the abrams take point and push in front of alpha instead of alongside RPGs will have a tendency to hit the sides.  Is that so surprising?  

 

1 hour ago, J0hnson said:

and last gamenight (...) is an un-comprehensibly bad example of why Hammer should NOT be used.

I didn't say that hammer shouldn't be used?  I said it wouldn't lead to any better, let alone good, teamwork.

 

Still just my personal opinion as a player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for getting penetrated on the front of the turret, I saw that rocket fly towards us and I can assure you it wasn't the tandem PG-7VR but the normal PG-7VL, and that one has around 500mm pen, so shouldn't have penetrated. But like you said, ArmA ain't real life.

 

26 minutes ago, Stanhope said:

As far as i've seen we don't have a single player on AWE that actually has any proper experience with it.  That might just be me tho.

I felt kinda sad when I read this, as Mini is actually a very competent commander. This video (hopefully) proves that:

Spoiler

 

But then again, we it has been a while since we (or anyone) played Hammer during regular play, so I understand where you're coming from.

 

I'll say this about that gamenight: mistakes were made, I won't argue by who since I wasn't listening in on LR. Just don't base your whole opinion of Hammer on that one night.

 

41 minutes ago, Stanhope said:

I said it wouldn't lead to any better, let alone good, teamwork.

In my experience, Hammer is THE role that truly requires teamwork to do succesfully. The reputation it gets of being a lone wolf killing machine is mostly due to the inexperience most PltCo/Asl have when dealing with an armoured element. Many times command just tells us to go to the opposite side of the AO, instead of supporting infantry. The times we did do infantry support though were actually very rewarding for both us and the infantry, with good teamwork on both sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bah dunno what you lot are talking about, Hammer and Torch never died in that well thought out mission. Sending tanks into a town against a conventional military that was now using guerrilla tactics was actually really smart. 

 

Oh well, irrelevant arguments will always prevail over friendship in a community these days.

 

To conclude that sarcasm though, having Alpha use armor AND heavy weapons does kind of make all other support roles irrelevant, so it would be nice if we could open up other roles a little more and actually get some proper teamwork and coordination. Blaming the roles over the players is as idiotic as some of the players that take the roles from time to time and ruin it for the rest. probably just called myself an idiot there because fuck my rep

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps let's keep it on topic, gentlemen?

 

As for the ability of light armor vehicles to Alpha, this totally does not mean that Hammer and Torch is restricted from this role, rather it's keeping in mind that AWE is typically populated by up to and not exceeding on average 12 players, which would preclude the use of light armor in the current ruleset.  I'm actually quite a proponent for a Hammer/LAV + Alpha infantry combination, because what tends to happen is that players drive their marvellous vehicles up to the AO and ditch them to fight on foot; at least with Hammer in the vehicle, it'd still be used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel that the current issues with FSG can be categorised into 2 issues:

 

1) Over micro-management of FSG

2) Failure of ASL to control FSG and/or be aware of FSG's position

 

I feel that FSG is perhaps being over managed as other squads, such as Alpha, have a lot of freedom as to how they operate. They choose the weapons they take, how they proceed to the objective, what they do in an emergency. With FSG, ASL tries to control next to every aspect. "We want you to take these weapons, even though you are the ones that should be deciding which weapons you take for the most part since you are the ones that will be using them". 

 

I also feel that the reason there are issues with FSG and ASL is a lack of communication. Stan is complaining that he didn't know where FSG was when he needed them, but it is both FSG and ASLs fault. FSG didn't tell ASL they were moving and ASL wasn't paying enough attention to notice that FSG had moved off. It's as simple as that. 

 

Separate from these issues I also feel that removing FSG will not get rid of the issue that we have players who don't play for the team and play for themselves. I feel that this is also the fault of ASL and the admins. If there are players who consistently not doing what you tell them to, do something about it rather than complaining FSG doesn't listen to your orders on the forums. If you see these people join FSG just tell them to get out as they don't listen to orders rather than facing issues in the field because you failed to deal with the problem early enough. 

 

Make FSG like Vortex, only players known for their reliability to listen to ASL can be in it unless stated otherwise. 

 

By removing FSG, you have not solved the problem of insubordination. These players will continue to fail orders until you deal with actual problem: the players themselves. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I don't want to start a dick-measuring contest here but just to clarify in a friendly manor:

 

3 hours ago, Stanhope said:

So?  I mean the M1A1 abrams was developed between 1986 and 1992.  The RPG-7 fires the PG-7VR round, which was designed in 1988 by the soviet union.  The round was specifically designed to penetrate explosive reactive armor.  It can penetrate up to 600mm of reactive armor, 750 if it's plain old armor.

 

We were fighting insurgents using the 1961 PG-7V rocket only capable of penetrating 270mm (bearing it minds its also a HEAT warhead, so that's really not great). They were not firing the tandem warhead, Jochem (the gunner) clarified this as we, ourselves, asked if that is what they were using. I also saw a RPG gunner's corpse when we bailed in Kavala, and sure enough, he had the original, 1961 round.

 

This is only relevant as you mentioned how Hammer was being ineffective, to which I replied by saying it wasn't our fault as much as Arma's armour values.

 

3 hours ago, Stanhope said:

Actually i told alpha to fall back and let FSG deal with it.  
And maybe let me know that you're getting attack from the back so i can send an alpha team to deal with it?  I mean i can't smell that you're getting shot at.  And i can't hear it either because we were getting shot at from all directions.
And if i tell FSG to move up and engage something i assume that you realise that you can overtake alpha to do that.

I wasn't on the LR at the time, but I don't really understand this point anyway. If your point is, now, that we weren't vocal enough on the radio, that's not a FSG problem anymore, but a player problem. That could happen in any role. I imagine @Minipily will be able to clarify here.

 

3 hours ago, Stanhope said:

Now that doesn't make sense to me.  Just because people can't take FSG they'll rather take alpha if the requirements for hammer are lowered?  I mean they'll just go to hammer then.

Lowered so that we only need an ASL, A1 and A2. I'm not sure if that's how it is now but I thought a CMD was needed. Alpha will fill much faster than in the past and Hammer will therefore be much more accessible.

 

3 hours ago, Stanhope said:

I recommend you take ASL a few times you'll realize why they are related.

I do ASL a fair amount and if I were in the position you were in at the time, I would have had no problem with FSG's actions. We were never too far behind or ahead, it just seems quite nit-picky. You wanted us at the rear then you wanted us ahead, fair enough, but just keep in mind your argument about our positioning.

 

3 hours ago, Stanhope said:

As far as i've seen we don't have a single player on AWE that actually has any proper experience with it.  That might just be me tho.

Mini has been commanding Hammer for literal years, Jochem has been gunning for the same and I've been loading/driving for them about half that time. That aside, I've seen actually very nice

 

with other Hammer teams, working alongside Alpha in LAV-25s and such.

 

3 hours ago, Stanhope said:

Which you knew was there, it was called out over long range.  And instead of sending alpha to take that guy with the RPG out you decided to go do it yourself?  And then you dare say that you didn't overextended?  Overextending has nothing to do with absolute distances.  You can be 20m in front of alpha and be too far ahead.  You can be 500m in front of the and be within an acceptable range.

Okay, overextending has everything to do with distances unless you live by micromanaging (which I highly advise against, wont help with the stress). To be specific, we moved 5m forward as the RPG gunner was basically on us already. We did not assume he would be able to cook us instantly, as I've said in previous comments, due to the impossibility of that round killing us. And yeah you could say "Well you should have realised you were playing Arma not real life" yeah well maybe, but God forbid we have faith. We defiantly could have waited for Alpha to move up, but I imagine Mini had the feeling that the RPG was gunna step out either way, again, he was about 10m in front of us "But then he would have hit the front armour, you should have done that instead", well then that's putting faith in Arma again.

 

3 hours ago, Stanhope said:

Which you knew right?  I mean you can look at the tank and see it.  So how exactly is that an excuse for dying a lot?  That'd just lead to a change of tactics. With the bradley taking charge and the abrams in the back ready to deal with anything if shit hits the fan.  

But yea if you let the abrams take point and push in front of alpha instead of alongside RPGs will have a tendency to hit the sides.  Is that so surprising?

Right, we knew we didn't have TUSKs yeah, but we didn't think we could just get Zeus to spawn one in "What you get is what you get", said that exact night. It's apsolutly an excuse for dying a lot. This is the exact same argument about players requiring helmets as they will die less with one, as we would die less with TUSK. And what do you know, Karate gave us a TUSK when we died for the second time as he felt bad for us getting one shot all the time. With this TUSK we survived substantially more RPG's, the last one killed us as it WAS a tandem that Karate spawned in himself, to balance the field a bit. Additionally, we absolutely had right to take point (idk if it was orders or not) but even with the Bradleys BUSK, I think we still had more armour. Furthermore, if there was a T-72 on the road (which was a great possibility) Torch would have a REAL hard time nocking it out before getting hit. More so, I believe Alpha was moving between Hammer and Torch, so if the tanks switched places, Hammer wouldn't actually be able to fire due to the cannon blast.

 

Regardless, your point is invalid in my eyes, since an M1A1 in a fucking capital city is a losing battle no matter how you slice it, so don't blame Hammer.

 

Snort the fucking Iraqi incompetence:QKlFJhR.jpg.ca9858d938d6dd2ab7d5989af6ad6661.jpg

 

 

3 hours ago, Stanhope said:

I didn't say that hammer shouldn't be used?  I said it wouldn't lead to any better, let alone good, teamwork.

 

Still just my personal opinion as a player.

You say you want teamwork - you say Hammer does not lead to teamwork - you therefore don't want Hammer. If you now, instead, think that Hammer could be used in a teamwork fashion, then I'm afraid you agree with my point.

 

 

 

I've only JUST seen Ryko's reply asking us to keep on topic so if you want to continue this discussion then I'll happily PM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Forum Statistics

    11.1k
    Total Topics
    66.4k
    Total Posts
×
×
  • Create New...