Feedback: Missions

Feedback and debriefings from Berget 16

Rate it!

5 - Excellent
2
3%
4 - Good, but could be better
16
22%
3 - Ok
32
44%
2 - Bad
20
27%
1 - Terrible
3
4%
 
Total votes: 73

User avatar
Arradin
Berget Crew & Site Admin
Berget Crew & Site Admin
Posts: 733
Joined: 05 Jul 2012, 16:06
Location: Göteborg, Sweden

Re: Feedback: Missions

Post by Arradin » 17 Jul 2018, 15:00

Just to be completely open and honest with all sides:

Mercs has always been hard controlled by BE. For balance purposes. This year they were forced to be friendly with blue and hostile with red.

But all in all, balance was not an issue this year. I dont think we Will see a standalone merc team next year
Please send ticket & payment questions to:

payment@berget-events.com

User avatar
Obi-San
2nd Lieutenant
2nd Lieutenant
Posts: 199
Joined: 02 Dec 2008, 08:57
Location: Tallinn, Estonia

Re: Feedback: Missions

Post by Obi-San » 17 Jul 2018, 20:25

Well, we had couple of times when during important missions HQ did realised that about 100ppl from different companies just gone rogue and doing baserape raids(what was quite pointless at that time)
And i do belive that bases always will be target for people who do "hey, fukc that HQ stuff, lets go and have fun!" stuff.
Bases always have ppl on them and pew pew a lot. B14 was kinda experiment on that, with FAD that is quite far.
B7 - Orlov Mercs
B8 - Civilian Field Intelligence
B9 - Home Support Team
B10 - Mountaineers Foreign Legion
B11 - SVR Spetsnaz
B12 - Power Ranger
B13 - SADF Paras
B14 - Shadow of the NAF
B15 - NAF infantry. All of it
B16 - UPIR shareholder
B17 - TF Gecko

User avatar
ArcticWarfighter
Newbee
Newbee
Posts: 8
Joined: 14 Feb 2018, 09:57
Location: Arctic Circle
Contact:

Re: Feedback: Missions

Post by ArcticWarfighter » 17 Jul 2018, 23:19

Main problem we had running missions on NAF, even though a lot of it was just running around headless waiting for random orders to come in that made at times very little logic. HQ requests take CP. Walk out the hard way to CP just to find out just before you get there that some other company has already taken it. Great. That's a couple of hours trough hard bush and up a mountain for nothing. Try to reorg with CO that cant figure out where he is. Walk another couple of hours in random direction to finally hook up to figure out that, well, there's nothing really to do and the whole mission was kinda pointless after half a day of walking in heavy rain. Walk up to the shrine just to find it abandoned.

I mean, the only time we had some real meaningful action this year was going semi rogue after your XO or CO died or returned for whatever reason and sought out something meaningful to do. Running 25-30 guys down to CP 1 and causing some mayhem there was really the main thing that happend that day, and sure as hell not because it was asked by any commands. So a better structure of meaningful missions, and the ability to actually make some meaningfull missions before stepping of would be nice. A general lack of communications between the NAF companies seemed pretty evident as well as we had plenty of times missions that ended up getting taken or completed before we could even get there because we took the hard route as ordered just to come to the objective already taken over by friendly forces that took the roads for example.

At least that way, telling your boys you're going out to do something, anything that has a small reasoning behind it beats walking around with a "Maybe we can figure out something cool to do later while we walk around to X spot because HQ might think there can be a couple of guys there to fight".

Also, is there any statistics on the amount of BAAVS for each side? Because it felt like this year NAF had 1/20th the amount as UPIR did.
Our whole Foxtrot company had the massive amount of 0, yet every single UPIR force we met seemed to have at least a couple, some times a lot more making it seriously hard to do any kind of impact full blows. Also, the second any kind of motorized or mechanized stuff came around you're automatically at a huge disadvantage because you really can't do jack shit about it.

Anyway, overall it was a fun experience running NAF Infantry regardless of all the downsides this year, but next year will defiantly be moving towards Ranger to get a bit looser mission parameters and actually be effective at something. Honestly, with this years use of our company, having had all people go rogue would have done a lot more for NAF than 70% of our missions supplied by HQ.
B16 - NAF Infantry - Foxtrot 2.2 Team Leader
B17 - TFC Rangers

User avatar
Corni
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
Posts: 24
Joined: 17 May 2014, 12:31
Location: Switzerland
Contact:

Re: Feedback: Missions

Post by Corni » 18 Jul 2018, 13:28

ArcticWarfighter wrote:
17 Jul 2018, 23:19
Main problem we had running missions on NAF, even though a lot of it was just running around headless waiting for random orders to come in that made at times very little logic. HQ requests take CP. Walk out the hard way to CP just to find out just before you get there that some other company has already taken it. Great. That's a couple of hours trough hard bush and up a mountain for nothing. Try to reorg with CO that cant figure out where he is. Walk another couple of hours in random direction to finally hook up to figure out that, well, there's nothing really to do and the whole mission was kinda pointless after half a day of walking in heavy rain. Walk up to the shrine just to find it abandoned.

I mean, the only time we had some real meaningful action this year was going semi rogue after your XO or CO died or returned for whatever reason and sought out something meaningful to do. Running 25-30 guys down to CP 1 and causing some mayhem there was really the main thing that happend that day, and sure as hell not because it was asked by any commands. So a better structure of meaningful missions, and the ability to actually make some meaningfull missions before stepping of would be nice. A general lack of communications between the NAF companies seemed pretty evident as well as we had plenty of times missions that ended up getting taken or completed before we could even get there because we took the hard route as ordered just to come to the objective already taken over by friendly forces that took the roads for example.

At least that way, telling your boys you're going out to do something, anything that has a small reasoning behind it beats walking around with a "Maybe we can figure out something cool to do later while we walk around to X spot because HQ might think there can be a couple of guys there to fight".

Also, is there any statistics on the amount of BAAVS for each side? Because it felt like this year NAF had 1/20th the amount as UPIR did.
Our whole Foxtrot company had the massive amount of 0, yet every single UPIR force we met seemed to have at least a couple, some times a lot more making it seriously hard to do any kind of impact full blows. Also, the second any kind of motorized or mechanized stuff came around you're automatically at a huge disadvantage because you really can't do jack shit about it.

Anyway, overall it was a fun experience running NAF Infantry regardless of all the downsides this year, but next year will defiantly be moving towards Ranger to get a bit looser mission parameters and actually be effective at something. Honestly, with this years use of our company, having had all people go rogue would have done a lot more for NAF than 70% of our missions supplied by HQ.
You are speaking out of my hart...
It certainly felt the same way in NAF Mech.
(BAVS situation included)
I can't really point my finger on the reason.

A lot of Missions just felt pointless.
Or in some cases unachieveable.
I'm sure HQ meant well or was concerned about operational security and therefore didn't explain the bigger picture.

There was this order to take the Chassis Factory wich was Defended by estimatly 50-60 ppl. My platoon had 25 guys.
We suggested to HQ that an INF Coy should push to CF and attack it from the north. This would have been a 20min walk +/- straight down from NAF Base.
We were ordered to do shuttle runs instead to bring Inf to the fight, which we tried but it was too inefficient, cause noone mobilised ppl back in NAF base (or at least it seemed thaz way).
And imho this was tactically a nightmare.

Biggest fun we had, was defending Turret Factory on friday evening. Although we went rouge in doing so as well. Orders were to attack UPIR base.
So we had this massive fight at TF and barely held it under NAF control. We were around 40 guys down there and it seemed like a 100+ reds were attacking.
It was super cool, that HQ sent Delta and Echo elements as reinforcement. They arrived in the last minute.

So later that friday evening HQ said, the attack on UPIR base was just a distraction. The real target is to hold the Turret Factory and at midnight blow it up.

Summary:
We went rouge and through dumb luck defended a story-relevant objective and made a real difference in the outcome of this years Berget.
The question arrises though.
Why did HQ not send the proper amount of forces to defend the TF in the first place?
Why waste massive recources on an UPIR base attack when we are so close to "winning"?
Btw. Apart from that I think HQ did a great job.

In two sentence:
HQ please let your ppl know the bigger picture.
It motivates players so much more when they know what part they play in this massive ochestra.

Greez Corni
B12/ Orlvov Mercs / SWE,NOR-Coy / Robin-3 Squad Leader
B13/ GCT Infantry / 3rd Platoon Leader
B14/ NAF Infantry / Echo-1 Platoon Leader
B15/ UPIR Heavy Weapons & Demolitions Unit Squad leader
B16/ NAF Mechanised / Golf-3 Platoon Leader

I like big BAVS and I cannot lie...

User avatar
leonidas
Private
Private
Posts: 13
Joined: 05 Apr 2012, 16:34
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Re: Feedback: Missions

Post by leonidas » 18 Jul 2018, 15:50

UPIR Infantry, Charlie Company 1st platoon leader

Long story short:

- Hike to CP X
- Take it/defend it
- And when you start having fun, HQ calls you back to base.

Players need variations in missions to be 100% engaged. Please be more creative next year (Berget 10 & 11 style creative) to maintain the momentum during the game

Special thanks to the following teams who made the game worth it this year:

Tic Tac (those of you who were sleeping at base :P)
ZVA
GOS Chasseurs
Fusion Tiger

and if course The Blackwatch
B10 - Fox 2-3 Recon, NAF 23rd Inf Battalion
B11 - Blood Ravens, Talon 1, Platoon 2
B12 - PMC UNISEC
B13 - GCT Para Infantry
B14 - NAF Inf - PL 2iC
B15 - NAF Inf - PL 2iC
B16 - UPIR Infantry - PL, Charlie 1
B17 - TFC Rangers, SL, Z 1-2

Verage
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 138
Joined: 16 Oct 2014, 08:09

Re: Feedback: Missions

Post by Verage » 19 Jul 2018, 07:29

Berget can see how many BAVS/AT4/TOWs there were in each team?

User avatar
TerrenceAnth
Sergeant
Sergeant
Posts: 96
Joined: 21 Nov 2011, 09:22
Location: Donegal Ireland

Re: Feedback: Missions

Post by TerrenceAnth » 27 Jul 2018, 20:08

Ok then i have a suggestion! Maybe make the mission times longer less return to base and more push and hold the line for the guys that are able to do it? I feel like from b10 to now the game has got a little more casual.

B10: Go climb and caputre angel peek. A gruling hike followed by a huge enemy contact, russian guys doing mass charges and fighting for so long we actually started running out of ammo + water and cold from layin in the dirt trying not to get shot.

B10 made me fall in love with berget
B17 Still great because the guys made it great but casual missions
B10: NAF 23rd light infantry. Fox 2.3 recon PL
B11: Blood Ravens PL
B12: Sledgehammer Company Commander
B:13 GCT Special Parachute Infantry PL
B14 NAF Infantry PL
B15 Ballsdeepwreckingcrew
B16 UPIR Hawk 9 Company Commander
B17 Coming Soon.....

The Black Watch
Blood for the blood god!

Post Reply