Adding immersive gameplay with changes to mission settings

[SPC (Ret) C. Jay]

So I have gone around and talked with many of you around from different squads, platoons, individuals in leadership roles, ground elements and air ones; and one thing is common amongst everyone that I've talked with is, how can we make the 506th better and add realism without adding anything.

For every single one of these potential changes, there is no new mod or anything like that, just adjustment to server settings, maybe items that are carried by troopers, and how we as players and troops on the ground may have to operate within our SOPs.
One potential change is we as troopers may be killed on the field faster/easier depending on certain injuries that are sustained, (head shots, a mortar or arty round landing next too you, or just bleeding out).

If you would like more information and the specific setting, please reach to me and I will gladly explain.

[MSG Speirs]

[SGT A. Hawkins]

As someone who joined a more medically “realistic” unit before, it turned into more standing doing nothing while medic worked on a guy and more waiting for someone to be reattached. We fight companies upon companies of opfor for the sake of fun over realism, with the drawback being medical has to be toned down.

[CW3 (Ret) Hauk]

Warrant Officer Jay and 506th troopers,

Adding my input into this conversation, extending this idea possibly even beyond just the realism of injury or KIA's I think we do a considerable amount of situational training when at times it seems for little actual useful impact.  The following is just one possible area this idea of our approach to realism could be applied.

Example, as a unit one of the more focused, stressed and practiced training regimens' is 2IC.  But when, in actual operations is this training completely and realistically applied?  If a squad leader goes down the 2IC steps up, if they become aware of the need to step up, for what......a few minutes, if that.  From my experience it usually ends up causing more confusion or miscommunication than a fluid transfer of control.  If they go KIA they get a "reinforcement" that goes right back to the same squad lead position?   **** Hmmmm lets think about that. ****  And then the only point this becomes permanent is a 2nd KIA of the same trooper.   Adding a layer of realism to the KIA policy within the unit where an FTL, squad leader, or anything up the CoC goes KIA then they do not go back into their billet position would seem to be more realistic.  As with actual reality in an active combat zone you might not get a grenadier replacement, or an FTL or squad leader to refill that vacant billet and more likely would not. This is why field commissions exist.  In the follow through of this scenario the leadership positions that go KIA as the "reinforcement" would fill in at the last leadership 2IC billet that steps up.

So to lay it out.  Havoc 2's Platoon Sergeant goes KIA, all leadership positions know the chain of command and who will be stepping up where.  So this happens, the appropriate Squad leader steps up, then the FTL fills the Squad lead and the "reinforcement" becomes the needed FTL.   And since chain of command is set way in advance and training would of course have to follow this concept the Sergeant would know exactly what FTL position they would be filling.  No questions, no confusion, just a reset of radios which should already have happened before they board the helo for the flight in.  In fact, for every platoon this last 2IC position would be established for any leadership position that went KIA as they all would be "reinforcing" to that specific FTL position unique for each platoon.  And this would and could easily be applied all the way to the TFC.  (The lowest level exception would be an FTL that goes KIA they fill in the position within the fireteam after 2IC's step up.)
 
This can enhance several immersive and realistic scenario's to the operations and then 2IC positions and training actually has operational meaning, impact and greater responsibility of the 2IC's within the unit since there will be much greater burden and most importantly seriousness.  Really truly understanding your boss's job takes on a whole new dimension.  This also puts 2IC troopers at all levels when this occurs under real pressure while actually being under fire.   There is no better way to measure an individuals character and how they handle difficulty then pressure under fire.

There are side benefits with the above scenario.   Leaders within the unit, run in the field in positions they never do anymore within their own platoon during operations.  They get to see how troopers react and handle the situation, get a fresh perspective from the bottom up.  Troopers at all levels not wanting to have this occur to them may find another motivator to taking care of their "lives" on the field of battle.   

This entire approach on the level of realism could then also lead with the above scenario to allowing options not available before, such as looking at the 2 KIA and you are done policy being re-evaluated on how it is applied or it could be completely redone.

This is just one possible scenario out of I am sure many that other troopers could come up with.

Regards,

Chief Jenkins

[SSG M. Jaeger]

Just offering one additional perspective as food for thought...

My IRL work involves leveraging Arma for SOF training, exercises and rehearsals for when select operators cannot be collocated.  In our use case, it's more about realism than fun or play.  One key take-away for us is that we've added a substantial amount of realism (and that was quite a painful effort, let me tell you) to see that it would make for quite an awful "game."

I would offer/argue that fun and realism are two ends of a sliding bar.  For most, but not necessarily all, aspects, turning up the realism will create related aspects that can reduce the fun.  As such, it's a balancing act.  While I agree that there are probably always  opportunities to add a little realism here and there without degrading fun significantly, it really is generally a give and take.  IMHO, I think the unit (behind the scenes) has often tried to adjust settings or add mods to add realism or new features, to often find that implementation challenges or the degradation to fun outweighed the potential benefits.

Another consideration:  As a specialization in the 506th (combat engineer), I could think of a dozen ways to make engineering more realistic and more fun for engineers -- but I would likely put the entire task force to sleep in the process.  As such, just as one small example, Blacksmith wargames painfully through each new idea to find any negative impacts that they may have on other players and overall enjoyment.

As one of the other replies covered, the unit could implement some of the most amazing and realistic medical settings (just an example, don't beat me up medics) -- and I do this on my IRL server -- and it can easily end up being one of the most painful speed bumps to fun tempo, unless you are a medic. (Well, I bet nobody revives me on the battlefield anymore.)

Bottom line: Again, IMHO, I think passing ideas up the CoC is always encouraged.  Lack of implementing those ideas doesn't mean they were blown off by the CoC or S-4 -- they likely put a considerable amount of thought into the overall impact of the game.

Very respectfully,
SGT M. Jaeger
(unofficial/personal post)

[SSG (Ret) Donohoe]

There are going to be very differing opinions on a subject like this, keep in mind you are never going to make everyone happy no matter what you try to achieve. But I will share my opinions on some aspects.

- We are absolutely not a realism unit in certain regards:
We set out for every official event at a platoon or task force size, we encounter battalions worth of enemy infantry, armor and other assets.....we never loose. At some point the rinse and repeat of the same outcome becomes monotonous.

In addition to this, throw in that from time to time there are examples of poor decision making in terms of movement, placement of assets, use of certain assets etc and again we will still have the same outcome....we never loose. There has to be consequences just like IRL where a bad decision results in a bad outcome, nobody likes a bad outcome but you are sure to learn and improve from it.

There are ample examples of operations where an objective is set out, that objective is identified and split between the rifle squads with lanes of priority to clear and without fail one of those squads will find the Task Force Commander of the day along with their supporting elements clearing through buildings, usually ahead of the rifle squad, there is absolutely nothing realistic about this.


- We seem to have lost all creative ability for operational flow
For the past while now, our mission, regardless of which task force, goes something like this. There is a COP...somewhere, we push on line to the somewhere COP, react to contact along the way, spend the last 20 minutes clearing said COP and then mission complete. As above the rinse and repeat of zero imagination is becoming monotonous. There is no twist, people are doing stupid things or making stupid decisions because as above, there are no consequences.

There needs to be a re-think on how we conduct operations, we need to get rid of the subconscious safety net we seem to have developed that no matter what we do...even if it is badly, there are no consequences. The medical aspect is one way of dealing with this in a certain regard, but fighting an actual realistic enemy that will do it's best to out think you, out maneuver you, block every attempt of your movement within their AO through defensive lines etc needs to be considered.

Another aspect that would potentially add to the realism, get rid of notional AA. I have said this before on the forums and will keep saying it, we have aviation assets, use them to the full of their potential. The enemy will have AA and you very much run the risk of being shot down if you make a mistake as an aviator, that should be a good thing. At the beginning of each deployment, each task force could be assigned a certain number of air-frames, it is up to the pilots along with supporting elements to keep those assets safe while also being effective. You get half way through a deployment and you have lost your allotted air-frames, tough, you now have no air support for the rest of the deployment.


These are just some of the things that pop in my mind as I write this, there will be more points of view offered, all should be considered and perhaps we may well find our way back to realism, there are plenty of BF4 servers if you just want fun and nothing else.
 

[SSG (Ret) Davenport]

There’s also a considerable gap between “sitting and doing nothing” and “pausing to coordinate forces, recon, route plan, or make decisions.” Particularly when you consider our typical operational pace is far and away greater than what is realistic. You could cut our pace in half and still have “violence of action,” and likely cut down on the amount of positioning mistakes that are made at the squad level and above.

There are, of course, time limit considerations. But those considerations could also be addressed by considering the scope of any given operation.

[CPT Drumheller]

[CPT Drumheller]

So to explain my reaction:

Almost everything in this thread has been hashed, rehashed, and re-rehashed over the past 12+ years I've been doing this. We have literally already tried or are currently doing every single thing already mentioned in this thread. We used to have 2ICs step up permanently when the 1IC went KIA, and anyone who went KIA could only come back as a reinforcement, filling in with their own element at a lower level.  This was largely disliked and eventually abandoned. I personally don't care if we go back to it either way, but it was what the unit wanted at the time. Also, 2ICs stepping up is absolutely used all the time when personnel can't attend their own missions/trainings.

We are NOT doing "enhanced medical". You don't get to have a more realistic, immersive experience at the cost of someone else staring at a black screen for X minutes. On top of that, what happens at a mascas? Especially when one or more medics are down? It cascades, and then some people spend half the mission staring at a black screen.

We set out for every official event at a platoon or task force size, we encounter battalions worth of enemy infantry, armor and other assets.....we never [lose]. At some point the rinse and repeat of the same outcome becomes monotonous.

There are several aspects to this. Our missions are finely balanced on a knifes edge and we are constantly on the verge of losing missions. That said, where do we draw the line? Do we just overrun the task force until they literally can't fight back and half the TF is dead for RP purposes? We could, from a Zeus/Ares perspective, absolutely demolish the TF in our missions. Would that be fun?

And the last, and most important thing to consider here is this: We train and train and train and we, as a unit, are fucking GOOD at playing ArmA. This is NOT a failure, and I refuse to punish us for being too good at what we do. Failure to fail is not a failure.

In addition to this, throw in that from time to time there are examples of poor decision making in terms of movement, placement of assets, use of certain assets etc and again we will still have the same outcome....we never loose. There has to be consequences just like IRL where a bad decision results in a bad outcome, nobody likes a bad outcome but you are sure to learn and improve from it.

This was absolutely done in the last TF Alpha. A littlebird did a rocket run on our vics because we went behind enemy lines IOT attack an objective. What was the result? A mascas that put down 1/3 of the TF. That was absolutely fine with me. What happened after, though? Complaints of PvP from Zeus. So how do we balance people making bad decisions on the blufor side with Ares taking advantage of that from the opfor side without people getting upset? I've been doing this, as stated above, for 12 years, and I haven't seen the answer for that yet.

There are ample examples of operations where an objective is set out, that objective is identified and split between the rifle squads with lanes of priority to clear and without fail one of those squads will find the Task Force Commander of the day along with their supporting elements clearing through buildings, usually ahead of the rifle squad, there is absolutely nothing realistic about this.

"Lead from the front. Say, “Follow me!” and then lead the way."
-MAJ Dick Winters

On top of this ethos, everyone in this unit is here to play ArmA, and for most of us that means kicking doors. That includes the personnel in leadership positions. Very few people in leadership positions in this unit would pass up the chance to switch to a "funner" billet with less responsibility if given the chance. Nearly everyone that I've ever played ArmA with wanted to stop at the platoon sergeant level, myself included, in order to continue playing in that role at that level to avoid this type of thing, but fortunately there are always those that acknowledge the necessity to step up into leadership positions in order to keep the unit running at a more administrative level beyond the battlefield. We have structured things in the unit to ensure that those personnel are still able to lead from the front and enjoy what they are doing.

Additionally, the HQ element is a fantastic tool to utilize in order to fill in gaps when clearing through lanes that have a LOT of content in them.

For the past while now, our mission, regardless of which task force, goes something like this. There is a COP...somewhere, we push on line to the somewhere COP, react to contact along the way, spend the last 20 minutes clearing said COP and then mission complete. As above the rinse and repeat of zero imagination is becoming monotonous. There is no twist, people are doing stupid things or making stupid decisions because as above, there are no consequences.

There needs to be a re-think on how we conduct operations, we need to get rid of the subconscious safety net we seem to have developed that no matter what we do...even if it is badly, there are no consequences. The medical aspect is one way of dealing with this in a certain regard, but fighting an actual realistic enemy that will do it's best to out think you, out maneuver you, block every attempt of your movement within their AO through defensive lines etc needs to be considered.

This has literally been being done since you sent the message up to unit HQ weeks ago.

Another aspect that would potentially add to the realism, get rid of notional AA. I have said this before on the forums and will keep saying it, we have aviation assets, use them to the full of their potential. The enemy will have AA and you very much run the risk of being shot down if you make a mistake as an aviator, that should be a good thing. At the beginning of each deployment, each task force could be assigned a certain number of air-frames, it is up to the pilots along with supporting elements to keep those assets safe while also being effective. You get half way through a deployment and you have lost your allotted air-frames, tough, you now have no air support for the rest of the deployment.

Another thing that we have done in the past, and one of the main reasons we left the 15th and created this unit. To put it bluntly, our air assets could complete 100% of our ground objectives by themselves without us even being there because of how the terrain and mechanics of ArmA work. The very thing you're complaining about above, which is our missions being too easy, is why our air assets are restricted for portions of every deployment by enemy AA/AAA. There is literally no way to make this game challenging when air assets are given free reign. It's hard enough to present a challenge to us as it is. The pilots in the 506th are aware of this. There is an entire document in the unit dedicated to explaining the reasoning behind it, which is freely readable by anyone in the unit. If they are not aware of it, there is a massive failure somewhere in our CoC, and I don't believe that to be the case.

_______

Everyone here is an unpaid volunteer giving up their own free time to participate and help keeping this unit running. This means people are giving up large amounts of their time around deployment and mission design. There is a whole team dedicated to planning out opfor movements and reactions to our actions. They are always recruiting and looking for help if you want direct input and suggestions on how our missions are going or new, different mission types and objectives, and how to make what we do more dynamic and challenging while avoiding simply wiping out the task force for RP reasons.

Lastly, CoC should be utilized for things like this. This is absolutely along the lines of things we are constantly discussing at Unit HQ level. A poll on the forum isn't going to change things. As I said above, everything mention in this thread has either been tried before and deemed unsuitable for how we play ArmA, or has been adopted into SOPs and TTPs from the S3 side.

Actually lastly. In regards to overall realism in our operations - A realistic scenario in ArmA would be a well hidden MG bunker with two guys inside and a dozen guys guarding it locking down our entire task force for two hours until we were able to maneuver on it and take it out, or able to get an angle in it to call in a laser guided munition on it, after dealing with unreliable comms issues for an hour, and then go in and sweep up what's left. We tried something similar to3 this 2-3 operations ago with COIN ops at the beginning of the operation and it was nothing but non-stop complaints sent up the CoC until we went back to our standard "kill an entire battalion of enemies per task force", because shooting enemies is what has been proven to be the most fun for the unit overall, regardless of realism.

Everything we do here is "infantry theater" and intended for the boots on the ground to have a great, immersive experience while still having fun playing ArmA. Most of our realism comes from structure, tactics, SOPs, and communication, not from our actual mission structure. Mission failure is always a possibility, and we have experimented with it several times this deployment to little avail. It is VERY hard for us to fail a mission in a way that doesn't feel "cheap" for those involved and ruin peoples experience.

There is one final issue I will address in this thread tomorrow after I speak with the 1SG after confirmation of some information.

[SPC (Ret) C. Jay]

CAPT,

I hear ya and totally get where you are coming from in the this isn't the first time topics like this have come up and talked about. That isn't always a bad thing no, however I get it can be annoying.

To clear one thing, I am not looking to have ENHANCED MEDICAL.
""We are NOT doing "enhanced medical". You don't get to have a more realistic, immersive experience at the cost of someone else staring at a black screen for X minutes. On top of that, what happens at a mascas? Especially when one or more medics are down? It cascades, and then some people spend half the mission staring at a black screen.""

I actually feel our medial system is good, just with a few minor tweaks and it can be a lot better. As much as myself and a few others would love to see D. Co and the 506th start preforming MEDEVAC missions and that may happen way in the future, there are other changes that can be made. I know many mission creators have created missions and other situations where the overall goal was to completely stop our advance and cause a "mission failure" due to intended causalities or resource deletion.

There is a way for us to have more KIAs of troopers without enhanced medical systems turned on. The bleed out timer, right now it does not exist on our mission template cause it is turned off. Right now, the minimum timer for a trooper to go KIA is 3min30sec's, and that is if they go unconscious and loose a pulse instantly after being hit, that is the Cardiac Arrest Timer. Right now, with the new ACE settings on, that timer is much longer, closer to 4-5mins. I agree, that is a long time just to sit there and bleed out if no one is working on trying to save your life. With the bleed out timer enabled during cardiac arrest, two different timers are now activated, your blood loss level, and your unconscious timer. Blood loss is determined by the extent of your injuries sustained. Unconscious is still bound by its original timer.
This is what I meant about troopers potentially dying faster/easier. This brings in TCCC and CMS back to more inline aspects of IRL with, STOP THE BLEEDING-CHECK FOR BREATHING.
I'm not gonna cover more aspects of your comment's at this time since it falls more outside of what I was talking about for this post.

[1LT (Ret) Burke]

I actually feel our medial system is good, just with a few minor tweaks and it can be a lot better. As much as myself and a few others would love to see D. Co and the 506th start preforming MEDEVAC missions and that may happen way in the future, there are other changes that can be made. I know many mission creators have created missions and other situations where the overall goal was to completely stop our advance and cause a "mission failure" due to intended causalities or resource deletion.

Bleeding out and going KIA isn't actually that fun to me.  As the Captain mentioned, we are GOOD at Arma as a unit.  A big part of the reason that we don't have more KIA's is that our medical staff and CLS training in the unit along with triage and mascas coordination are all pretty amazing. 

Sitting on my ass in the rear waiting to reinforce is not fun. Killing OPFOR and kicking in doors and tactically coordinating an assault with like minded individuals is however lots of fun.  Sitting around while I can hear other people doing it on the radio while I twiddle my thumbs extra sucks.  We as a unit also have to deal with the occasional death caused by random Arma shenanigans at times which just adds insult to injury.  Imagine being downed by some AI shooting through a bush or worse, through a wall, and then you end up going KIA as a result of it, that would be rage inducing.

I'm sure a MEDEVAC situation would be enjoyable for D.Co but as a grunt on the ground, but being flown around for 15 minutes while staring at a black screen is 15 minutes of my life I won't get back.  Not to mention how much time it takes to get reinserted which may not be possible as the platoon moves on into new territories that an air insert may not be able to approach.  That's not what I joined (and rejoined) the unit for.

As an individual each member of our unit has access to a wide level of immersion options but there is a line between reality and fun and it's a delicate balancing act that the 506th works hard to find the perfect balance.  Where that point is is always a moving target as well as new patches and updates to our mods and the core game are released all the time.  I think the unit does a great job at enforcing a high level of realism within the confines of the engine without also dragging the gameplay down into a level where I would no longer enjoy it.  If that is the kind of gameplay that you are looking for then there's the Game Room that is available to make whichever kind of missions you do enjoy and will allow you to play them with like minded individuals.

Lastly, we have and do fail.  Occasionally.  Since I've been in the unit I can think of missions where we've:

• Failed to complete our objective(s)
• Failed to leave the starting COP because we got our shit pushed in and were unable to leave
• Had a squad of infantry be captured by the enemy and become POW's that we later had to attempt to rescue
• Been halted in our tracks and forced to fall back.
• Had mascas and multiple KIA's from half of our platoon being shot out of the sky
• Failed to capture/rescue/take some key mission goal
• Had multiple KIA's from IDF

These were fun and memorable but these kind of things are and, in my opinion, should remain as the exception to normal operations.  That kind of stressful situation every mission would also be a different kind of misery for me and honestly would be out of character for a US Army unit.  They do kick a lot of ass and so should we.

[SSG (Ret) Beard]

For those who think that having a platoon size element taking on a battalion of opfor is not realistic, it's worth taking note of real life kill/loss figures in real life conflicts involving the US Military. Numbers are approximate.

Korea
China/North Korea: 404,000
US: 33,000
Kill/Loss: 12:1

Vietnam
NVA/VC: 950,000
US: 58,000
Kill/Loss: 16:1

Gulf War
Iraq: 65,000
US: 148
Kill/Loss: 493:1

Etc.

The US military seriously kicks ass IRL. Modern history is replete with stories of very small US units taking on and beating absolutely crazy odds.

As for the Milsim vs IRL medical issue, a US combatant serving in a combat zone has a very surprisingly low chance of dying in combat. Between vastly superior soldier protection, vastly superior weapons and tactics and the worlds absolute best combat medical system, serving in the US military is safer than any other military on the planet. Hell, its a lot safer than some civilian jobs! Not being dead during an simulated combat operation is actually very close to reality. Also, if advanced medical is used, the level of training required to make medics competent increases dramatically which means someone has to volunteer even more time to create the curriculum and every medic and CLS has to have the spare time to do the additional training on top of all of their other trainings. Playing ARMA is a recreational activity. If any position was overcomplicated to the point of feeling like a job, the pool of applicants for medical positions will dry up fast.

In any case, where does realistic death end in a simulated environment? Restarting your ARMA career back in OSUT with a new name? Its silly.

The naysayers need to realise that the depth of realism in this community lies in the unit structure, discipline and training. Especially the training. The ability to take what you learn here (especially with the leadership training) and actively utilise elements of that training in the real world.

If you want supreme realism, make an appointment with a real recruiter. Until then, take a step back and look at how good this community is. The comradery here is absolutely amazing. The leadership is mature, stable and above all, fair. Enjoy making friends for life.

Complain less. ARMA more. That's my two cents worth, anyway.

[SPC (Ret) C. Jay]

Beard,

you took my suggestion and twisted it to the extreme. If by the logic of saying that, then individuals like myself and many others would never fill in on the ground for operations without taking command or being able to fill in at all. No, this is still a game and we are still here to have fun and play of course.
And again, like I mentioned before, I do not want enhanced medical systems enabled that would have to have enhanced medical equipment enabled also. That is not what mission setting and adding of immersed gameplay I am trying to bring in.
(Personally do not see TQs as advanced cause every basic trooper gets training on the usage, however here it is considered so fine for now.)
 

Your figures on causality figures is a little stretched thou, cause that is incorporated with every asset and such to provide both the maximum uses of fire power and weaponry as well as every possible asset to keep friendly troops alive. That means special units who are trained and equipped to save lives and get them to a higher level of care. We are one of very few if not the only modern military that provides such a high level of medical care in country to be able to evacuate even the most critically injured persons off the battle field. That is one of the biggest reasons why American causality figures are historically lower than many of the countries we fight against even on foreign soil. These techniques and such started back in WWII, hence why every conflict since, American causality figures are low.

[1LT (Ret) Mallory]

There's a pretty widely overlooked variable to our community that has contributed to its lifespan and steady membership, that I have recently come to appreciate, even from the sidelines that is our reserve component. S-1 tracks retention and recruitment annually, which when you collate with feedback on deployments, operations, training, exercises, fun ops- everything that is done here, its hard not to be aware of both our collective sustains and improves.

I used to not understand either the depth or history that supported much of the why behind the reasons and decisions for some things in the unit- until I went to the aviation side of the house.

90% of everything done in aviation is with the expressed intent of providing the best and most immersive experience NOT to those operating their respective airframes, but to those of you on the ground. It is because of this that we don't operate DCS-level immersion/flight simulation mods or have mods that serve a similar end. While it would be immersive, hyper-realistic, and rewarding to learn and master such systems as they exist in a particular mod, it would also proportionally make the margin for pilot or mod error that much greater- leading to more crashes both physically within ArmA and technically as it applies to the game itself. The greater good, combined with a managed expectation of what is good for the majority over the minority has been among the most solid and enduring reasons I believe this unit truly does stand alone in its domain.

There are a multitude of decisions that have been submitted, ran up, and approved which range from quality of life to aesthetic improvements. Should anyone ever have either a mod or idea they believe would benefit not an individual, but the unit as a whole- they have always been encouraged to send that idea/mod up for discussion and approval. Respectively, there have been many items which have been disapproved, and while the individual reasons may vary and not always be known, they are for the most part disapproved because they reduce the function or collective enjoyment of the majority of members within our community. I can't speak to specific instances, but I also cannot believe many reasons outside of the aforementioned.

For those who wish to try their hand at working to improve something within our unit, I urge you to drop an application to your respective S-shop that interests you, even if that shop is not actively searching or recruiting. If you are really passionate about improving the unit, you will find a way to first understand the why behind the what, and what ways with that knowledge in hand you can bring forth to improve OUR unit.

The bottom line: hopefully people don't think for a second that the foremost question for the majority- if not the entirety of both the members at the helm of our community, as well as those who directly support and enable its continued development and supportive operations is, and almost assuredly has been:

How do we continue to sustain & improve the experience?

___

As a lingering bit for all, remember that while the 506th may be ran by Captain Drumheller, it continues to remain possible because of both him and us as its members and the community that exists here. It is a jointly held asset that might literally belong to a single entity, but one whose success exists from the participation and enjoyment of YOU.

[SSG (Ret) Davenport]

SSG Beard,

I'd be hesitant to label those volunteering ideas they believe will improve the 506th experience as "naysayers" and "complainers."

It's a good sign that members are concerned about the 506th experience. Particularly when we've been bleeding billeted members of late.