Berget Forum

We had less "special" missions and as many players/commaders have asked for: we let the commanders work from the OP-order and capturepoint system. This ment not adding so many "micromanagemant" platoon sized missions from BE.

What was the result?

The result was that there where none missions at all..

I'm still in favor of having no crew-provided missions (just an over-arching goal), but then you have to let the sides be free to actually perform their own missions. If one side gets artillery'd to death the moment they do something that wasn't planned, then very little is going to happen.

Most of the missions we went on this year seemed like they were player-generated (i.e. by our own command, not by BE), which was good.

More missions is better i would say. Having main ones, optional, side mission, larp missions etc and give to the groups wich suits best. And ofc make sure everyone get things to do!
If BE controlls the missions it´s easier for them to make sure action happens. This time people took controll points, left them unattended and the enemy came to take it back.
If it´s a bit more controlled it´s easier to make sure both teams send people of equal strenght to a point to take/defend.

There was simply too few missions for GCT. Just concentrating on the points isn´t fun for everyone. Psy-Ops and the Sapper unit seems to have gotten pretty much 0 missions.

So i would say more missions! I can help create missions aswell for both sides but mostly more to the larp style if so. Seriously i could even have dressed up as one of those bears you promised us but never came!
Some of my friends are also interested in making missions they can play out for the fractions.
Unfortunely i seem to be losing a bit of my airsoftlarp friends since they don´t want to come to berget again due to all trouble this year Maybe i can convince them to try again.

But well if making our own missions is fine then we will try make a few and see how it goes i guess:) We are already making plans but waiting to see what happens to the map and story first and we will talk to admins about ideas.

Just need to know if BE would allow such things? To create smaller missions for the fractions so they get a bit more to do?

Last year, I was one of the people asking for fewer BE-provided missions and a more sandbox-type game.

This year, that came to bite us in the ass.
The combination of the Red domination and a lull in GM oversight due to a off-game issue on friday, meant that Ikaros forces were stuck with 'go forth and defend that point' missions, without a lot of GCT activity in the area (or so it seemed from our perspective).
This caused a lot of boredom, which could have been mitigated by having a more challenging opponent (nothing personal guys, I know you blues fought hard and you deserve credit for that but on a conflict-wide scale, it wasn't the toughest of battles.) or a cookie-jar with missions that were insignificant story-wise or had little to no in-game impact, but were still fun things to do and keep troops occupied. For a force of mercenaries this could range from 'there's a crate of gold somewhere in this location, go find it' to 'a pilot seems to have crashlanded here, go fetch'.

I still stand by my point of having less BE-missions with in-game impact, but boredom-prevention missions would be useful. Or, alternatively, a set of guidelines within which commanders are allowed to invent their own shit without having to consult GMs, which we could not really do this year given the state of GCT resistance.

Actually i liked it, with less Special missions. But to create nearly 0 Special missions is also wrong. This years Story was perfect for some larp missions, like "smuggle some Food and beverage or medical supplies into krasnovo" to get the villagers on our side.

Or like, take and hold a CP which is near to your base for an amount of time to get the total control over it.

Or for the Ikaros: try to capture the smugglers, or something that way...

but all those whining about too less fighting from GCT side, yeah, it should be obvious why this was, isnt it? Less Players, less vehicles, nearly no bavs, a fucking hill between the camp and the actual game area, and each Teams were oranisied by their own, very less working together... We had enough Targets and had fun, hope you did also. If not, changes sides next year.

Helvetica wrote:each Teams were oranisied by their own, very less working together...

That's your problem right there, lad.

No comms between battalions mean no organisation of your own missions.
Our base assault? Joint operation.
Insertion of SAM sites on your side of the border? (gigetty) Joint operation.
Extracting and supplying a double agent? (double gigetty) You guessed it, joint operation.

Asymmetrical warfare is a thing these days.

vinni wrote:

Helvetica wrote:each Teams were oranisied by their own, very less working together...

That's your problem right there, lad.

No comms between battalions mean no organisation of your own missions.
Our base assault? Joint operation.
Insertion of SAM sites on your side of the border? (gigetty) Joint operation.
Extracting and supplying a double agent? (double gigetty) You guessed it, joint operation.

Asymmetrical warfare is a thing these days.

Actually has been since Poland 1939...

I will not vote because the options will not give a complete perspective. I was not happy with how few missions we got this year, but I am still of the opinion that we should have less classic BE-missions. Set up objectives and let the rest be up to the HQ command. They can cook up missions for the different platoons and divisions, and alter/add more as the game flow changes. Having objectives rather than more or less scripted events/missions, will give us a more sandbox-styled gameplay which is really what suits airsoft and Berget the most.
It can still be a good idea that both faction GMs get a live feed from another GM that arranges when certain phases/objectives are being activated. This would be so that both teams have specific reasons to be in a certain area at a given time. It could be for the same reason, or totally different ones. The important thing is that the battling factions cross each others paths from time to time so that we don't reapeat this years mistakes.

I have never liked the mission provided by Berget Crew. It felt too micro-managed and gave top commanders no flexibility.

So I am in favour of fewer BE missions, but that has to come with a target rich environment. Numerous targets, each with their own form of strategic value.

Commanders then have the flexibility to create their own missions, campaigns and strategies.

GM's should be on hand to assist the commander when needed to ensure that everyone is gets their fair share of missions and actions.

I think that the main gripe with BE missions is the fact that they usually say 'take those guys there and do that', which interferes with the commanders' ability to plan.

What I think would be less of a problem is if they were to issue objectives instead.

By example: The Cerberus OPORD stated that we had to maintain an OP on Gryphon hill. At first sight there's nothing really wrong with this. However, since it was in the Cerberus OPORD it wouldn't be done by another unit and it also clearly states where BE wants the OP (which later turned out to be not a good location as the team could see only half of the GCT base).

What would have been better was to have a general objective 'maintain an OP with eyes on GCT base at all times', that could be fulfilled by any unit (Murso company from Minerva, by example, had some excellent recon units that often took over or filled in OPs from/for Cerberus). Especially if that objective makes sense from a game and story perspective.