The MGL areas

Feedback and debriefings from Berget 10

If you where part of a MGL mission, how did you think it worked?

Good, keep this for next Berget.
9
11%
It did not work dont keep this.
31
37%
With some improvements, keep it.
43
52%
 
Total votes: 83

User avatar
Berget-events
Berget Crew & Site Admin
Berget Crew & Site Admin
Posts: 1979
Joined: 30 Jan 2006, 21:22
Location: Sweden
Contact:

The MGL areas

Post by Berget-events » 03 Jul 2012, 10:37

If you where part of a MGL mission, how did you think it worked?
Berget-events

Please send general questions to:
info@berget-events.com

Please send payment questions to:
payment@berget-events.com

User avatar
wormbyte
Major
Major
Posts: 566
Joined: 05 May 2008, 18:21
Location: In a bush watching you...

Post by wormbyte » 03 Jul 2012, 10:54

In principle they sounded good ideas, although I was always concerned with being able to communicate to guys from such a distance.

But with radio problems within the main gaming area, I knew there was no chance to communicating to guys at the MGL.

This then left us with lower numbers for an indefinite period of time, with no idea when we would see our guys again.

There is a whole massive area in the south of the Island that could have been used without sending guys to another part of Harnosand.
B6 - Platoon Commander (India 1st Platoon) - NATO
B7 - Company Commander (India Coy) - NATO
B10 - 3rd Rangers Commander
B12 - GCT Ranger Commander
B13 - GCT Para Inf - Company Commander
B14 - Commanding Officer of the Nordic Alliance Force

User avatar
JudgementDay
Major
Major
Posts: 502
Joined: 28 Feb 2010, 19:25
Location: Germany
Contact:

Post by JudgementDay » 03 Jul 2012, 12:47

From what I hear, the players that went there really loved the MGL missions.
From a commander's point of view, communication was non-existent, as Ian said.

Also, BE-internal communication and coordination did not seem up to the task at certain points, it seemed to me.

Example a) The GM supposed to lead NAF Mech units to the first MGL arrived over an hour late of when we were informed to be ready. I have no idea if the Inf and Rangers already waiting on that location had a good way to pass the time while waiting for the Mech to supposedly provide support for their extraction, but Mechs stood around waiting for way too long while around them normal gaming routine continued.

Example b) When the Mechs had relieved Inf and Rangers on that MGL and were the only ones staying behind, they were tasked with the destruction of a missile silo. When going for the objective, they were told that 'BE had forgotten the props' and that they needed to wait until a GM could bring them from the SafeZone. When the props (a detonation charge) had arrived and they were conducting the mission, they were suddenly besieged by an enormous force of Poldavians.
Now let me be clear: I know that mission design dictated that the Poldavians should arrive right when the countdown for the destruction started ticking, and the players had fun in experiencing a 'famous last stand', holding out to the last man being outnumbered 40 to around 250 until the bomb went off. But at the same time the Mech players shared the general feeling that if BE hadn't screwed up bringing the props, they would have been in&out there before the Poldavians ever showed up in the first place, so they had been denied a very smooth and professional mission by BE's organizational failure and had instead been shot to bits without any chance of reinforcements out there. If you plan missions based on minute timing, you really need to have personnel make sure it works out, and keep up the act, because nothing ruins the 'in-game' MIL-Sim atmosphere more than a GM stepping in and telling people to wait for the event management to catch up with current situation.

And general conception c) As Ian already said, we had large stretches where either NAF or Poldavian (or both) forces were largely bound to those off-site locations. During these times, proceedings in the main gaming area almost came to a standstill at times, because neither side dared to make a move when they had only 50% or less of their forces on site. So the missions in the MGLs largely affected gameplay in the main area in a negative way, and I personally (and others apparently shared that sentiment) was under the impression that as far as missions, firefights and clashes with enemy forces were concerned, this Berget was much slower than most previous games.

All in all, it seemed as if BE had rushed to this (really good) idea way too early, overstretching their own organization, skills and personnel before a number of organizational problems from previous games had ever been taken care of.


So to be honest, yes, keep the MGLs.
But before you do that, get coordination, communication and information flow running at an acceptable level for the rest of the game.
Been here since B08... :)

User avatar
Mr Black
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
Posts: 260
Joined: 01 Apr 2011, 18:44
Location: Sweden

Post by Mr Black » 03 Jul 2012, 13:27

What he (JudgementDay) said.

Keep the MGLs but with MAJOR improvements to BE organization and timing.
Hic sunt mortem

Nemo me impune lacessit

B8 NAF 5th Infantry, Plt leader Echo Delta
B9 NAF 1st Mech Inf Btn, Coy CO Cobra 1
B10 NAF 2nd Mech Inf Btn, 2iC
B11 UA17 (Captain Black)
B12 Civilian (Jim Tom Mudwater)

User avatar
Blackwolf
Berget Trustee
Berget Trustee
Posts: 287
Joined: 04 Jan 2008, 02:51
Location: Portugal
Contact:

Post by Blackwolf » 03 Jul 2012, 14:41

Hello

I was in 2 MGL missions

1st locate the Oilfields and silos (only 1)

To go to a location like this and fight 12-15 guys called merchs in civie armbands( crew)

This was a joke.

2nd CQC

To send 100 INF into a area full of debris and in the night with rain and fight again 12-15 guys called merchs in civie armbands( crew)

This was a joke and DANGEROUS to see 40+ players going into a garage door almost on full auto.

1 of my guys from FOX4 broke his wrist while going through the door and being pushed from behind

Regards

Blackwolf
BLACKWOLF
BERGET 5 NATO SQUAD LEADER
BERGET 6 NATO PLATOON LEADER
BERGET 7 NATO COMPANY COMMANDER
BERGET 8 NAF BATTALION COMMANDER
BERGET 9 NAF BATTALION COMMANDER
BERGET 10 NAF ALL THE WAY
MEMBER HOSTILE OPERATIONS TEAM
PORTUGAL

User avatar
Redmenace_tv
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
Posts: 210
Joined: 03 Aug 2009, 03:23

Post by Redmenace_tv » 03 Jul 2012, 15:26

I was never at an MGL, but listening to peoples experiences maybe these should be smaller in scale but better organised. maybe 30 vs 30 or less. in smaller sites that have a more focused game objective?
(TOM)
Berget 8 - NAF 5th Staff Officer
Berget 9 - 2IC NAF 1st Mech battalion
Berget 10 -2IC NAF 23rd Inf Battalion
Berget 11 -AWOL
Berget 12 - AWOL
Berget 13 - ?

HerrNilson
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 139
Joined: 17 Mar 2012, 11:30

Post by HerrNilson » 03 Jul 2012, 16:32

The CQC area was a joke, we had two buses with no standing room left raiding that place, with no plans or maps provided before hand.

The sheer volumne of our force made it a joke and rather farcical to watch.

We were told to expect a 600sq m building. It was a mechanics garage, half locked up and piles of scrap metal outside. 1hr gear up, 1hr transport, 20 minutes gaming, 30 minutes standing in the pissing rain waiting for the bus drivers to come back.

It was a nice idea and it would have worked with perhaps one bus load of troops. But then if you can't offer it to all paying customers maybe skip it and concentrate on providing the best game experience you can in your main game area.

User avatar
Dre@mz
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
Posts: 38
Joined: 25 Apr 2008, 17:43
Location: Portugal

Post by Dre@mz » 03 Jul 2012, 18:20

Hello,

Answering as a Poldavian Sapper!

AFAIK only one MGL mission was assigned to us or, like Brujo made it look like, only one was given for us to "sign in".

Someone here told that it was dangerous having us near houses and children... can't see why!? We were told to have mags out and weapons safe, for me that's it!

Regarding the mission I can only complaint for the waiting time. We waited for 45min without knowing nothing. This time could have been used to brief us on the mission. Instead we waited and eventually progressed to the site... only to find 4 NAF vehicles and 50 or less players... that got slaughtered by 200+ Poldavians... fun, but ridiculous...

Then we were informed to defend the site... and then nothing... back to the bus...

Improve the existing before creating such content. It's a keeper, but needs much thinking to it.

Regards
B6 - UN
B7 - NATO
B10 - POLDAVIAN 15th

User avatar
Crapgame
Berget Trustee
Berget Trustee
Posts: 560
Joined: 10 Jan 2008, 17:40
Location: Vaasa, Finland

Post by Crapgame » 03 Jul 2012, 23:59

I was at the same mission as Dre@mz and i can only say.

1. i like the idea of MGL`s but need development.

2. i was lead scout and probably laid 2-3 meters from the gravel road the mechs where on and i could hear them from far away and they acted mostly like if they where just there to be shot out. Screaming loudly, test firing their guns….they were not really in any way preparing to fight someone…that was boring.

3. the 45 minutes of waiting could have been used for briefing...
B5: Allied
B6: Nato
B7: Nato HQ
B8: Poldavian 3rd QRF
B9: Poldavian 5th
B10: Poldavian 15th Sappers
B11: Blood Raven HQ
B12: Yuri Orlov Mercs QRF
B13: Ikaros Mech
B14: NAF Mech
B15: NAF Mech
B16: NAF Mech
B18: GCT Mech
Swedish & Finnish: living/working in Finland

User avatar
jdoe
Captain
Captain
Posts: 303
Joined: 25 Apr 2007, 18:03
Location: Oulu, Finland

Post by jdoe » 04 Jul 2012, 16:41

I don't think these work.

First of. MGLs only work if there are enough people to go around. NAF had severe problems with manpower, and taking 150 guys out of it wasn't really good. This takes out a lot of intensity on the actual game area (which is large enough as it is), which is not good.

Zansians had less, and so I think that is the reason we got no MGLs. Oh, we were offered one, on Friday/Saturday night at 0040hrs, to get ready in 20 mins, for 15 players. We got 2 interested and the mission was scratched.

I don't know how they worked for the Pollies, the 2 guys I talked to thought they didn't work out so well.
B16 - The Firm / Gun for hire
B15 - CPT/HQ/FinBat
B10 - 1st Coy CO / Zansian "Black Guard" Btn XO
B8 - I/1.Coy/1st Pold.Inf, Platoon Ldr (Fox 1-0)
B7 - SRP Fox Platoon 2IC/Arty FO
B5 - FFF Oulu Platoon Ldr

User avatar
Waldo
Captain
Captain
Posts: 497
Joined: 09 Jul 2010, 13:48
Location: Northern Germany

Post by Waldo » 04 Jul 2012, 16:57

I was part at the Silo MGL mission with the sappers. It was a nice idea, but the hassel with getting there by bus and the march through the forrest wasn't realy worth the fight we got out of it. Realy dissapointing thing was that we were ordered to dig in after the main fight and should wait for NAF machanized. After a few minutes we were ordered to abandon our positions and leave for the busses.
The area of the MGL was pretty similar to the main game area, so i can't really see the point of that mission on a MGL area.

If you want to do this again next year, maybe move smaller unit parts to MGLs. Get cool CQB areas or something like this.
B9: Pol. 320th Arty - Coy Cmd
B10: 45th Mountaineer Sappers ("Sapperneers") - Wiley 2-2
B11-B13: Serving the country
B14: UPIR - Righteous Employee

DutchWolf
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 106
Joined: 18 Oct 2010, 01:58

Post by DutchWolf » 09 Jul 2012, 01:48

At one point we were told to prep for MGL mission in 10minutes, then it got cancelled 5 min later. I gotta say this gave it a bit of a milsim feel, being told by your CO to prep for a last minute mission then being told to stand down / false alarm.

However, upon reading the other experience I can only say this:

Scrap the MGL missions for now, and only when EVERYTHING else is f#*king PERFECT inctroduce them again in smaller scale (SOF, squad or max. platoon).

But really, get all the other stuff in order first THEN improve fundamentals further THEN add extra stuff.
B09 - NAF - 6th Airborne - FOX4
B10 - NAF - 23rd Infantry - FOX2.1 Radio Operator

User avatar
sidewinderxxl
Corporal
Corporal
Posts: 48
Joined: 13 Mar 2012, 00:11
Location: Norway

Post by sidewinderxxl » 09 Jul 2012, 03:04

DutchWolf wrote:At one point we were told to prep for MGL mission in 10minutes, then it got cancelled 5 min later. I gotta say this gave it a bit of a milsim feel, being told by your CO to prep for a last minute mission then being told to stand down / false alarm.

However, upon reading the other experience I can only say this:

Scrap the MGL missions for now, and only when EVERYTHING else is f#*king PERFECT inctroduce them again in smaller scale (SOF, squad or max. platoon).

But really, get all the other stuff in order first THEN improve fundamentals further THEN add extra stuff.
i can see the logic in this, why cant BE crew ?
B10 : Poldavian 15th Sappers

B11: SIDU

B12: PMC Operator - Team Leader of sorts

Coffe
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 152
Joined: 07 Nov 2010, 19:54

Post by Coffe » 09 Jul 2012, 17:12

Me and the guys in my squad was supposed to partake in an MGL mission, but we had to opt out because apparently only CQB-class weapons were allowed.

Hardly any of us brought CQB-classed weapons to B10 aside from our sidearms (personally I thought I did by bringing an unmodified Tokyo Marui P90 but at check-in it shot just above the the mark and had got rated a higher velocity class).

We had no idea that MGL-missions would be a "CQB-weapons only" affair so a little more information from BE that such weapons should be brought (or making sure that the game areas are large enough for weapons with higher velociy classes can be used) wouldn't have hurt.

Unless I missed such information if it was posted somewhere, then it is of course my own fault. But I honestly can't recall reading that MGL was supposed to be a CQB-weapons only type of thing anywhere.

EDIT:

I'd also like to give my voe to those who say that BE should prioritize making he game flow perfectly in the main area before attempting to keep tabs on multiple areas at once.

The main area was much larger this year as opposed to last year so as a personal note I though that it would probably have been more interesting to place some more in-game locations in the main area rather than using the MGL-method (the map did look kind of "emtpy" with in-game locations in the southern parts to me, despite being open for playing)

We also had some situaions where we could've really used some more Berget Crew in the main gaming area (especially the basecamps) and the thought that some of them was unavailable due to MGL-events going on doesn't feel very good to me.

So to summarize:

I'm not against the MGL-idea on principle (I think it's cool), but more information about what to expect should've been given, AND I don't like that in-game hiccups occur in the main gaming-area as a result that Berget Crew are too busy organizing MGL-related stuff.

Furey
Corporal
Corporal
Posts: 42
Joined: 06 Apr 2011, 20:37

Post by Furey » 09 Jul 2012, 23:12

As a sapper who went on the quarry/silo MGL. We had allot of waiting, at the bus and in the woods, then a sudden rush forward and no idea what we were attacking or why. The MGL area didn't seem much different to the main area and we had a long walk to it from the bus, then the fun counter attack against our mines, bavs and field gun never came.

It was a fun evening but we didn't notice anything 'special' and we felt it could just as well have happened on the main game site. Don't get me wrong, we had a good time and I can see massive potential in MGL, but we didn't really benefit from it this time.

I heard about MGL where you deploy on boats though, how cool is that! Any chance of that happening on the big lakes in the main area?
Poldavian Army, 5th Infantry, Tango Coy
You know when you've been Tango'd
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXZFgGjB ... re=related

UK Airsoft Players Union
www.ukapu.org.uk

Post Reply