What did you think about the new gamearea?
- Berget-events
- Berget Crew & Site Admin
- Posts: 1981
- Joined: 30 Jan 2006, 21:22
- Location: Sweden
- Contact:
What did you think about the new gamearea?
Berget-events
Please send general questions to:
info@berget-events.com
Please send payment questions to:
payment@berget-events.com
Please send general questions to:
info@berget-events.com
Please send payment questions to:
payment@berget-events.com
- Svansst?mper
- Private
- Posts: 11
- Joined: 16 Mar 2010, 16:45
I tend to agree, but it did add to the milsim experience, with the base feeling pretty remote.Smacker wrote:the onley downside was the length to safezone for poldavian 3rd mountaineers. but overall it is a lot better than berget 6 and 7.
If Berget only had better transport, it wouldn't have been as much of a problem.
Last edited by Stig on 20 Jun 2010, 05:14, edited 1 time in total.
I also missed Bashir City, which sorta was the center of attention last year.
And personally, the parts of the game area I did get to see had a little too dense forest and heavy undergrowth for my tasting.
And personally, the parts of the game area I did get to see had a little too dense forest and heavy undergrowth for my tasting.
B7 - NATO Oscar Company, Radio Operator
B8 - Poldavian 1st Infantry, 2nd Company, Sniper Team Spotter
B8 - Poldavian 1st Infantry, 2nd Company, Sniper Team Spotter
The area was nice and the net of roads was fun. The forests around ranger base were real nice. Otherwise the area was reapeating itself.
Berget 7 - SRP, SL
Berget 8 - Poldavia 1Inf, SL
Berget 9 - Zansian Black Ops, Command Squad
Berget 10 - Zansia Infantry Battalion Commander
Berget 11 - GCT SFODU Commander
Berget 12 - GCT Intelligence Unit Commander
Berget 13 - GCT Para Infantry Commander
Berget 8 - Poldavia 1Inf, SL
Berget 9 - Zansian Black Ops, Command Squad
Berget 10 - Zansia Infantry Battalion Commander
Berget 11 - GCT SFODU Commander
Berget 12 - GCT Intelligence Unit Commander
Berget 13 - GCT Para Infantry Commander
Great area. But the bases location could be better, think that you should try and put the civilians somewhere in the middle.
Me to was hoping for some kind of buildings.
Me to was hoping for some kind of buildings.
"What doesnt kill you, hurts like hell."
Berget 12 - Ravens
Berget 10 - Poldavian 15th Sappers
Berget 9 - NAF 1st Mechanized Infantry Battalion
Berget 8 - Civilians, Sixth Mercs
Berget 7 - Yuri Orlovs Mercinaries (ORC)
PANZERFAUST [PzF]
Berget 12 - Ravens
Berget 10 - Poldavian 15th Sappers
Berget 9 - NAF 1st Mechanized Infantry Battalion
Berget 8 - Civilians, Sixth Mercs
Berget 7 - Yuri Orlovs Mercinaries (ORC)
PANZERFAUST [PzF]
A good area, 2*2km playarea felt large enough. You had energy to walk pretty much everywhere every day and some left to fight with ^^
A bit dense growth in some areas, but that is unavoidable. And I did miss a bashir-city, that was great last year.
A bit dense growth in some areas, but that is unavoidable. And I did miss a bashir-city, that was great last year.
B5. Russia.
OC2. Militia.
B6. NATO, Bravo coy, 3rd Plt commander
B7. Milos tigers, Sibiria coy, 3rd Plt commander
B8. Poldavian Psy-Ops, Plt commander
B9. UN, Coy commander
OC2. Militia.
B6. NATO, Bravo coy, 3rd Plt commander
B7. Milos tigers, Sibiria coy, 3rd Plt commander
B8. Poldavian Psy-Ops, Plt commander
B9. UN, Coy commander
great area with many roads and no or little contact with offgame (private) housing. Can we have another game there now?
B7 - Milos Tigers, Siberia Coy
B8 - Poldavian 3rd Mountaineers, 4th platoon, alpha squad
B9 - Poldavian 3rd Mountaineers, 6th platoon, 3rd/4th squad
B13 - Ikaros Infantery, 4th company, 4th "platoon"
B14 - Nordic Alliance Force
B8 - Poldavian 3rd Mountaineers, 4th platoon, alpha squad
B9 - Poldavian 3rd Mountaineers, 6th platoon, 3rd/4th squad
B13 - Ikaros Infantery, 4th company, 4th "platoon"
B14 - Nordic Alliance Force
-
- Major
- Posts: 650
- Joined: 01 Dec 2007, 15:04
- Location: Norway
-
- Newbee
- Posts: 2
- Joined: 08 Nov 2009, 18:20
In my opinion, the area wasn't that good for this large a game. In most places I fought in, perhaps with the exception of the Scrapyard and its surroundings, the forest was so dense that the fights tended to degenerate into one-on-one matches where you couldn't get proper support even from your buddy, let alone your team or your platoon. In a sense, what we had was a series of weekend skirmishes (ie. a handful of players from each side participating in a fight) with very long walks to the respawn point - not the world's biggest airsoft game.
As an example, the less densely wooded, pine tree covered hilly area in the safezone, near NAF base, would have been much better suited for platoon vs platoon (or company vs platoon, or battalion vs battalion ) actions. In that kind of terrain, the squads would have been able to really maneuver and support each other, and in my opinion, that would have made the fights MUCH more intense and interesting! If this area is to be used in Berget 9, please try to put the strategic points etc. in more open terrain - that would make a big difference!
In addition, the Psyops base was in my opinion a bad choice, at least gamewise. It sure looked impressive, but it was eminently clear that it was impervious to direct assault - the fence alone would have pretty much guaranteed that, even without those bunkers. Of course, it didn't really come to test as our Bn. stopped the NAF attack cold ...
(As an idea, might there be a way to use AT weapons or something similar as area effect/anti-bunker weapons, either with a version of BAWS system in bunkers, or perhaps with a GM to "judge" their effectiveness? There were a lot of situations where direct fire area effect weapons would have been very useful and would have kept the game more fluid and interesting!)
As an example, the less densely wooded, pine tree covered hilly area in the safezone, near NAF base, would have been much better suited for platoon vs platoon (or company vs platoon, or battalion vs battalion ) actions. In that kind of terrain, the squads would have been able to really maneuver and support each other, and in my opinion, that would have made the fights MUCH more intense and interesting! If this area is to be used in Berget 9, please try to put the strategic points etc. in more open terrain - that would make a big difference!
In addition, the Psyops base was in my opinion a bad choice, at least gamewise. It sure looked impressive, but it was eminently clear that it was impervious to direct assault - the fence alone would have pretty much guaranteed that, even without those bunkers. Of course, it didn't really come to test as our Bn. stopped the NAF attack cold ...
(As an idea, might there be a way to use AT weapons or something similar as area effect/anti-bunker weapons, either with a version of BAWS system in bunkers, or perhaps with a GM to "judge" their effectiveness? There were a lot of situations where direct fire area effect weapons would have been very useful and would have kept the game more fluid and interesting!)