Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Tartantyco

  • Rank
    Company Commander

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

1,963 profile views
  1. Roleplay, logi, apc, mortars?

    Yes. Did it all the time in PR. Do it occasionally in Squad. Need to remove some pointless restrictions before I can commit to the role in Squad, though.
  2. SSD wear isn't really much of a thing anymore.
  3. Why are role selection made as it is?

    That was the goal of my ISKLR suggestion, creating a tool that could serve as an admin tool, a map layer/game mode tool, and a squad organization tool.
  4. Why are role selection made as it is?

    Kitless Loadout System. It would allow much more flexibility in squad composition while restricting the team's total kit access to a fixed amount. That way you can have a LAT in a 2-man squad, but you can't have 9 LATs in a 9-man squad.
  5. Admin scramble command

    You can have a scramble command that takes this into account.
  6. NEW Supply truck (different than Logi)

    This is already going to be in the game. A variety of vehicles will be able to carry supplies or ammunition. They will be able to drop those on the ground, and players can either interact with the vehicles and dropped supply/ammo boxes to change kits and rearm.
  7. How would you feel about a FOB build timer?

    Throwing arbitrary timers in there doesn't solve anything and just further hinders game comprehension.
  8. Rally Point Discussion

    Please let this be the last time I have to repeat myself: A 4-man HMMW squad. You have the SL as a driver, Medic as primary gunner, Rifleman as alternate gunner and scout, Light AT for added damage output. With this setup I do 100+ ticket damage to the enemy every round with only 0 to 5 deaths and while rarely losing a single HMMWV. You need the SL comms with the vehicle for constantly updated intel on enemy vehicles, you need the RP to allow your dismounted crew to respawn with the vehicle as needed, and you need FOB placement ability to drop ammo FOBs. Squad comms need to be entirely dedicated to the HMMWv's objectives, which include FOB hunting, Recon, Vehicle Hunter-Killer, disruption and ambush tactics. Considering the gameplay we're talking about promotes far more complex organization, teamwork, coordination, and communication than your "babby's first squad" setup, you are far closer to playing it like COD than we are.
  9. Rally Point Discussion

    Because I need RP and FOB ability with the vehicle, and I need direct SL-to-SL comms with the vehicle.
  10. Rally Point Discussion

    But I wasn't talking about your OP example. I was talking about my example. Try properly reading my posts before replying. No, I am not making false assumptions. I am telling you how people actually play the game. Not how you imagine in your head that everything sorts itself out fine, but how people actually play. No, I'm not going to "fluctuate the sound settings". You can't jump into the Settings menu every time you get into an engagement. If you have to problem solve just to operate functionally within a squad, then it's time to realize that it's not very effective.
  11. Rally Point Discussion

    Yes, it is necessary. It's a 4-man HMMWV. I need to have direct SL comms. I need the ability to drop a RP. I need the ability to drop a FOB. I need Binoculars. I don't have that if the SL is on foot 1km away from the vehicle. Yes, they can. But they don't. This is the inherent problem. SLs don't do that, and most often they're not able to do it. If they're attacking an objective, they get the APC to provide fire support. Any incoming requests from other SLs are ignored, even if they're higher priority. If the SL is engaged in heavy infantry combat, he most likely won't be able to hear much of the SL comms, and meanwhile the squad comms are filled with infantry chatter, drowning out a lot of information for the APC crew. If there is a lull in the combat, the SL will most likely have the APC hold in the area because he's planning to transport to another objective, but of course that all goes to shit and the only thing that happens is that the APC is out of combat for extended periods. Something as minor as a transport pickup can be a 30-60 second conversation between two squads to identify safe pickup and dropoff points, and you just can't have a SL relaying that comms volume between their APC and another squad while engaged in a firefight halfway across the map. This stuff happens even in high-level ranked matches, where information is simply lost because of inefficient comms. To argue that public play should somehow surpass that is just fantasy. Yes, but they still hear squad comms. And that's the problem. When I go hunting 30mm's with an open-top HMMWV, every millisecond, every single .50 cal round, every syllable that passes through comms, is vital to success. You just can't do that with another 4-5 people yakking on in squad comms. I didn't ask you to 1v1 me. I asked you to jump on a public server with me and put your words into practice leading a squad. Here's the thing. Hours played matters. It's not some absolute measurement where more hours = more knowledge, but you have to have explored the game and its facets to know what the hell you're talking about. The most arrogant thing is to believe that your opinion matters as much as anyone else's just because you have one. And a decade of experience with Project Reality matters, as well. Locked squads have been with that game since the beginning, and it has done nothing but add to the gameplay. The few "no locked squads" servers in PR had completely shit gameplay because specialization is not only important to improving efficient use of manpower and assets, but because it inherently nurtures teamwork and communication. In PR, you had some people who played strictly CAS for the majority of their play time, and you knew that when they were in that asset, they knew what they were doing. Because squads could be locked, people could specialize and hone their skills with specific assets. You just can't have that without locked squads. If you grab an APC, lock your squad, and run off to do your own thing, you're going to die pretty quick. If you grab an APC, lock your squad, and communicate and coordinate with your team, you're going to be an efficient addition to your team.
  12. Rally Point Discussion

    No, the SL can't be on foot. The SL has to stay with the vehicle. Try following along. APCs don't have to stay with the squad. But they always do. No, APCs don't have their own comms. They share comms with the rest of the squad, which is an incontrovertible fact by virtue of how the comms system is set up in the game. That depends on the SL actually relaying the information. Which is unlikely. So you don't actually want to resolve this matter, you just want to spout your opinion and leave it at that?
  13. Rally Point Discussion

    Yes, that is why "argument" is in quotations... Because nobody's actually using any arguments. It's just unsubstantiated statements.
  14. Rally Point Discussion

    This is not an any less hollow statement. Again, I could say the exact same thing for unlocked, 9-man squads. You're not making an argument here, you're just stating something extremely obvious that can be applied to anything. So you played against a completely incompetent enemy. You've completely failed to see the point. You need all the things I just listed contained within the vehicle asset crew, not just generally within the squad. You need the SL to be with the vehicle, meaning he can't be with another infantry section in his squad, meaning he can't drop RPs for them. You need the squad comms to be dedicated to information related to the vehicle asset, as you'll have recon and AT on foot and you depend on split second comms. You simply can't do this with a full squad. The added comms chatter would disrupt vehicle comms, the other squad members, likely infantry, would be without SL and RP. We're talking about general public play. It means that the vehicles will ultimately serve whatever objective the SL wants and will never serve as independent assets. You have a full squad with one APC. That APC will now transport that squad. It will provide fire support for that squad. It will provide overwatch for that squad. It will stay in close proximity to that squad. It will not have an independent chain of command. It will not have independent comms. It will not be able to effectively use its down time. It will not respond to other squads' support requests. A specialized two-man APC squad can perform exactly the same function as the embedded APC in a full squad, except it has the independence and ability to prioritize on a team-wide level. Whenever you use the word 'coordination', what you're actually referring to is basic intra-squad communication. An infantry section and an APC communicating with each other within a squad isn't some kind of high-level coordination. Anyone's able to do this. However, an independent APC squad is able to do exactly the same thing and so much more. You'd argue wrong. Me mentioning the word 'squad' when discussing squads is not me being squad-centric. You're being squad-centric because everything you talk about is on the squad level. I'm explicitly saying that specialized squads communicate with each other on a team-level. Let's make this real simple: I'm available this Saturday/Sunday. Name a server, you SL, try putting your words into practice.
  15. Rally Point Discussion

    I said that I know what I'm talking about. My opinion is more valuable than yours because I have over a decade's worth of experience with a game that allows squad locking, and because I am able to substantiate my opinions. This is the extent of "arguments" in opposition of squad locking: "I for one don't like the ability to have multiple small squads where they do not contribute to the game." This is not an argument. This is just a vacuous statement. I could just as easily turn around and say: "I for one don't like the ability to have multiple large squads where they do not contribute to the game." If you are able to construct a statement using actual arguments to substantiate your opinions, I may give those opinions some credence. However, until that time I consider your opinions to be without any value. If you want to know how to construct a coherent argument, read this post. It is also preferable to properly format your post and utilize punctuation correctly so that your text is easily readable. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This could be said of anything. It's a completely hollow statement. Highlights what you consider effective. Taking out a couple of insurgent vehicles is the bare minimum for any US/RUS APC. What you accomplished with your APC in this vehicle was completely insignificant. Neither is anything you accomplished exclusive to full squads. Specialist squads are able to accomplish exactly what you did, just far more effectively. The same thing could not have been done with a full squad. You need SL comms, you need SL abilities, you need independent chain of command, you need dedicated squad comms. If this was a full squad, you'd end up with a bunch of lonewolves and the vehicle asset would be completely slaved to the needs of the rest of the squad, which is detrimental to its effectiveness. Locked squads allow for coordination. What you consider coordination is just basic squad communication. Stop seeing everything solely within the context of the squad, and understand that the team as a whole is simply an even bigger squad in which actual high-level communication and coordination takes place.