Jump to content
American MilSim

Daihl

Members
  • Content Count

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Daihl

  • Rank
    New to American MilSim

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Castle Rock, CO
  1. Actually that is not entirely true, AMS told us to use the Respawn points that CoST had mid day Saturday. On Sunday you are correct we did not have respawn points.
  2. On thing on the CDF uniform, or just food for thought in general... Those where the uniforms that we were told to have, also we could not just have ball caps as helmets are need for vehicle use (at least for AMS vehicles) and they are a REALLY REALLY REALLY good idea. One of the camera men has some good points about target id on a different topic. And I get it it is hard to tell the difference between forces some times. There were several cases where I saw CoST guys that I thought were CDF because they had removed their camo top / blouse and had a black tee shirt on. The Militia look (not Civilian) that we where suggested to wear was one item of camo and non camo clothing. As we where aligned with CoST, then we we supposed to wear either one green camo item , or no camo at all we where not allowed to wear a tan camo item while working with CoST so we didn't look like the UFS. Everyone had a tan camo item back in camp as well. Several of the players took it upon themselves to wear blue jeans, and some wore solid tan pants as well. While the tan pants where allowed, I would highly suggest that in the future that not be allowed. It is great to comment and complain (and deserving so) about the CDF / Civilan / Police / Contractors or what ever we have over the years but very rarely do I see the "regular army" not wearing half of their uniform being mentioned as well. It could of been allowed this year for the a CDF member to wear woodland pants and black tee shirt. When a CoST Army player removes their top (part of their uniform) now they look like a CDF member. Just some food for thought... I would of rather of been a PMC.
  3. yeah, as N7GHOST said we are looking into and still trying to figure out what "actually happened", but I doubt we will never know. I just wanted let the players know what the official CDF command take was on it. I do not think that it helps the long term event planning if as a faction you do everything right and support a third element just to have them turn on you regardless of the fact that you did nothing wrong. That is one of the main reasons I informed our force the CDF is not fighting against the CoST, they had done everything right to keep our support. Also FYI in relation to DANARCHY. We made a special effort to make sure that we were not wearing any CoST flags. When we were doing our recon and presense patrols on Friday we noticed that several players had on them both the CoST and CDF flags (because both were given to us at registration) Saturday morning we made sure no one had CoST flags on. I like your mentioning of the 4 points, very helpful.
  4. Just to be clear CDF did not flip flop, I know because I was the CDF commander. My AAR is not even started yet but for those that want to know. Here is the rough timeline on the flip flop possibilities. Saturday Morning: CoST successfully meet up with the CDF XO and negotiated the agreement to help support the CDF in their attempts to fight the UFS. About 11:30-12:00 Staff requested that CDF pull back and disengage, most of the CDF force pulled back to our FOB, some wanted to stay in Coleville for awhile. During the CDF pullout a representative of the UFS approached the CDF command and wanted to talk about purchasing the support of CDF to turn on the CoST. Durring these negotiations the CoST Command staff approached the CDF CO directly and asked if there were any problems. I have to say well done guys staying right on top of that issue. The UFS offer was turned down as CoST had held their side of the bargain and the CDF felt that CoST still had our best interests in mind and where supporting us. We only had one situation of a CoST squad or two firing on CDF which was quickly dealt with (CDF killed them) Not sure if that is being counted as a flip flop but the standard ROE that I told our entire force was. If someone shoots at you, you shoot back. On our Pull out I personally talked with the CoST XO and told him that they have done right by us and that we had been given an offer, and we declined. CoST had earned our support at that point. The Majority of the CDF regrouped at our FOB and where then tasked by Staff to the opfor for the P-DAM's and DAM's against both UFS and CoST. Durring the aftermath of the CoST P-DAM, the CoST CO was informed that we had not-flip flopped but were disengaged and operating as DAM opfor. Sunday started off with a meeting between the CoST command and CDF command to negotiate or re-involvement with the conflict. We came to an agreement ($$$$$$$$$$$$$$) and shared a rough battle plan.
  5. I was the CDF CO and I fully agree with your point number 4. I don't not think that you should have a clear "protective" armor. I am in full support of someone making a m2 with a chicken plate on it. That chicken plate should not be clear, there should not be a situation where a play should feel invulnerable. Now I am sure there are many of you that are jumping to the conclusion of "what about windows". I do not have a problem with windows, I used to but now I don't. If it was me personally, if the vehicle is an un-armored vehicle (such as a jeep, buggy and such) then the widows should be down and everyone is vulnerable inside to small arm fire (you still go hit right). If there has been an obvious attempt to armor the vehicle (such as replace the windows with solid panels and such (and even add gun ports) then that should be treated like an armored vehicle. And I am fine with the ruling of you can't role down and back up the windows. For arguments sake you don't just roll down bullet proof glass. The vehicle that Refuge was talking about, I had not seen before that Friday and was unaware of its turret. I personally do not think that it is in the best interest of gameplay, and I would suggested that at least the clear armor that wrapped around it on the back 3/4 be removed. But I am in the minority on this and this is a game of volunteers (ie no real authority). Once upon a time I didn't like the gun ports on armored vehicles either, but then you have to realize that there is sever limitations in visibility and firing arc. To me that makes it more "fair". There are several people that will complain about how powerful the vehicles are. Let me tell you we did not feel that threat this year. Because we brought over 400+ rocket rounds and had 4 dedicated Anti-tank launchers for that reason. We also had several members that were solely focused on one task, resupplying the launchers when the limited ammo that we where allowed to carry ran out. Several say that true battles are won buy logistics, I agree with this. When I have to pull a whole squad off the line to secure a safe route from our FOB to our front lines just to transport rockets, that impacts the battle plan. However it is worth it and that is where the fun is. There were many vehicle on vehicle battles, they just didn't last that long. As this sport grows and more and more money is poured into by players we are going to see a progression. Right now I believe that as whole there needs to be more AT and artillery and IED/Mines to counter the growing vehicles. Once that happens players will start to understand the relationship between vehicles and troops on the ground. When the work in concert with each other is a very powerful thing. A vehicle alone, should get chewed up quickly. A mechanized platoon with members that understand that the vehicles are transport and special weapons platforms, and are not something that you fight from or hide behind and use a rolling cover, is very powerful.
  6. And there was very very very little AT rockets in use (if any), and it resulted in players throwing car parts thinking that would deter the drivers. Very funny to watch. Guys keep in mind that there is already a system for disabling vehicles. It just seams that not many people want to carry rocket launchers. I am all for the idea of making special rules for crew served weapons, as I a firm believer in the whole "if you are willing to carry in the field artillery, crew served weapons (with tripod) or other large weapon system then you should have an advantage" My hope is that with all the vehicles being used this year that both side remembered to bring something to take them out. I know we are!!!
×
×
  • Create New...