Jump to content

Michael_Denmark

Member
  • Content count

    25
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Michael_Denmark

  • Rank
    Fireteam Leader

Profile Information

Recent Profile Visitors

882 profile views
  1. Competetive Gaming – How to make it

    Not that difficult when you have the interest, time and the basic skills.
  2. Logistics of Personnel [OP summarized]

    Thanks to Tartantyco, for directing me to this thread. In the long run, I think we will end up with a supply system based on the Main 2 FOB. A system that will be manual operated, as it is in the real world. Because people will want it, as soon as they get bored with the old magic system. Only question to me, is how it should be implemented and at what pace? During the implementation phase, maybe the best solution is the optional solution, so the players them self can decide if they want to play the version of the map in cycle, with the old magic or the new realism? In regard to ARMA and other games, sure the logistical system will smell a bit of it, however, it is not ARMA - it is Squad.
  3. Ticket System Needs to be Reworked

    Just got an idea, posted it in the thread on FOBs: So, the following, is a new approach, to the usage of the ticket system: 1. Main Base is the resource pool of tickets. From here tickets must be transported to FOBs first, before it is possible to spawn on them. 2. This means that the FOB must be reworked a bit. Trenches should be added to it, from where the tickets will deploy in the shape of soldier avatars, although AI controlled, as long as they are not being activated by a spawn. These trenches will be deployed as part of the FOB. They therefore has to be dug out, the usual way, although faster than doing it real life. 3. In order to transport the tickets from the Main Base to the FOB, a transport has to take in these AI soldiers, deployed in barracks or trenches on Main Base. A transport can take the same amount of AI controlled tickets, as it can take human activated tickets. Thus as such, logistics now become more important than ever before, as it is in real life too. 4. The AI controlled tickets can be transported to the FOB, via ground, sea or air transports, literally moved into a radius around the FOB. The radius appear on the CO, SL and transporter maps. When the transport from main arrive into the reinforcement circle of the FOB, then the AI characters, literally being the soldier avatars, will automatically run for the trenches and hide there. 5. Each time a team member decide to spawn on that FOB, one of these AI characters, sitting in the trenches around the FOB, will disappear. This system will introduce a new level of gaming, in terms of where the team wants its tickets deployed on the map. Meaning, their can be "fake" FOBs as well, without any tickets around them.
  4. FOB Resupplying

    Agree, it should be Main Base as the resource pool. In fact, why not consider to drive trucks with reserves to the FOB, from the Main Base? Or even better, when a FOB is deployed, it comes with a small amount of spawn tickets. However, in order for people to keep spawning there, more reserve tickets are needed. These can be brought in via ground, sea or air transports, literally moved into a radius around the FOB, appearing on the CO and SL maps. The FOB it self, will be deployed with optional trenches, that has to be dug out, the usual way, although faster than doing it real life. When the transport from main arrive into the reinforcement circle of the FOB, then the AI characters, literally being the soldier avatars, will automatically run for the trenches and hide there. Each time a team member decide to spawn on that FOB, one of these AI characters will disappear. This system will introduce a new level of strategy and operational thinking, in terms of where the team wants its tickets deployed on the map. Meaning their can be "fake" FOBS too. Hm, maybe I should post this idea, in the suggestion forum instead?
  5. What do you think about the Last Of Us 2?

    Okay excited, although the sinning at a corpse promise more repetitive violence I think. - However, in overall the first game was amazing. It was very well written, and had great character development, plus a good ending. Only downside was the bit too redundant violence. Just too much of it. Now and then I would have loved to see some puzzle instead. Maybe related to medicine or attempts to find a cure?
  6. Ticket System Needs to be Reworked

    It helps thank you. Hmm. I wonder if there should be implemented a warning sound, like when in the situation you describe, as the losing team not understanding to 1) fall back far enough, or 2) fast enough in enough numbers to blunt an attack? Then again, probably not, even on teams not understanding a steamroll in motion, people wont like it and it might seem like an exploit too, for the assaulting that is. Commanders, as always, we need commanders.
  7. Devs we need to talk (Commander suggestion)

    Because it is a game, the platoon level of Squad, could also use the role of the commander. Because as in Project Reality, a player is needed to formulate the strategy, operation, tactics and the rest of the work to organise. Furthermore using game mode setups, where a CO player "only" has some 30 players to command, will for some CO players, be a good starting position, when facing the steep learning curve the role evolve around. Based on my experience as a PR commander player, I respectfully suggest a two folded setup, whereas your suggestion might be the standard, however, where the other is a free to organise. No rules attached here, everything is up to the CO player in question. That separate game mode is a very good idea indeed. It provide both the freedom for the player base to not play with a CO and the freedom to do it, while at the CO level, there should also be options available, as described above. This setup will stretch the spectrum of gaming potential in Squad, the most.
  8. Question about Air Defence vehicles

    They are. On top of that, a combined warfare game, without jets and anti air systems, smells more like an infantry shooter with vehicle support, than real combined warfare. Jets are the vital component of the air flank.
  9. Devs we need to talk (Commander suggestion)

    This is a useful idea, both in terms of the battle rounds, where the team has no real commander player available and in fact also the ones where the team has a real commander player at its disposal. The idea provide a purpose for the commander, meaning the players not knowing what to do, now does. That is what I would call an evolution of the game. At the same time, it could be inspiring to try out, for the few real commander players that do exist in the community. I fully support the test implementation of it and furthermore think it just might could end up being a - so to speak - step one commander squad, followed perhaps by a dedicated commander planning squad, hence a step two squad, where the purpose would be to create either platoon (several squads) or team based plans, during the battle. Thus in this scenario, the logistic stuff and UAV (information-work) is taken over by other players. The planning squad would consist of two to three players, with one being the commander and the two others staff planners, calculating timings, coordinating with logistics, gathering the information on both the enmy and own forces, claims, requests, team/platoon status included. The lite version is without any shred of a doubt, very necessary, in order to give the new commander players a chance. At the same time its also useful for old commander players, now them selfs, being restricted in what to do. Not a bad experience, since they are the ones restricting the rest of the squads. 1 Commander as squad leader of the squad 1 UAV player for the airborne intelligence gathering 1 or 2 dedicated logistical / transport drivers and or builders of stuff The commander can take over any of the other squad functions as he please The commander is restricted to a certain amount of direct battle orders for the squad leaders Basically we are talking about a manager here, more than a commander, which is fine, as long as the commander also get some tactical stuff to do. The game system should provide team points for both the tactical as the logistical work the commander and his squad complete Good stuff you deployed!
  10. Ticket System Needs to be Reworked

    Generally speaking, the aggressive team has always won more rounds than the passive teams. Only when the passive team, or perhaps least aggressive team, figure out how to defend its flanks and rear properly, the aggressive team ends up losing the battle. Have you witnessed any phases, or distinct changes, during this phenomenon? For instance like the aggressive teams tend to overwhelm the other team after a certain type of situation, during the battle? With the risk of sounding ridiculous, did you notice whether the speed created by those aggressive teams, made a difference, like the losing teams not being able to put up a solid defense, due to the speed of the attacks from the aggressive teams?
  11. Ticket System Needs to be Reworked

    Really interesting question. Has it ever been tested, like 25 rounds of Squad or PR, where the winning team has been picked from Team Points instead of tickets? Hm, that question make me wonder, I mean, what if Squad could offer both a winning team in terms of Tickets remaining and a winning team in terms of Team Points. Would such a system affect the gaming style of the player base? Would it encourage team work, more than the traditional Ticket system?
  12. Question about Air Defence vehicles

    On the other hand, from the commander and the battle planning perspective, not being able to implement the air superiority jet fighter and fixed wing close air support, is in fact a step backward from project reality. Lacking those assets, equal losing battle planning flexibility; you lose speed, fast in-depth projection, fast air reconnaissance and basically an important part of the air flank, able to create surprise. Helicopters are too slow to create such a surprise. Deprived of those fast air vehicles, also affect your ground troops not being able to push through or flank that enemy defended flag zone. Those troops will now become more dependent on other assets, in order to punch through. Meaning the level of dependency – battle planning wise too – narrows in, again meaning the learning curve, you know when trying to read the patterns of your opposing commander, in a tournament campaign that is, flatten more out, making it more easy to read, due to the reduction of factors. Having less, so to speak, punch-factors, on your team, also mean that you as commander become more dependent on specific players, leading that attack helicopter. This can increase the importance of using energy to create positive chemistry between you as commander and those specific air players. So if Squad, without fixed wings, is not a step back, compared to project reality, it is at least a more simple game, tactical speaking, while potentially, a more complex game, group sociological speaking.
  13. Question about Air Defence vehicles

    Not sure about them being helpless, but the routine you mention, at least for the skilled pilots, the Fog - Bomb Drop - Fog, maybe has been a bit too easy...over time that is. Any experienced PR fighter pilots in the debate? Not sure, because the pilot players I have played with, never talked about it like that?
  14. Question about Air Defence vehicles

    Sounds like a good compromise. Fully support it. But the question still stands; Is Squad – game wise - without Fighter Jets - a step forward or a step backward, in relation to project reality?
  15. Question about Air Defence vehicles

    True but that is why nerfing got a role in the equation. Think about the positive sides of implementing the features your refer too; expanded team work opportunities more stuff added to the learning curve more complexity added to the planning options, for the team leaders and commanders I think it is a reasonable idea not to implement jet fighters, unless they can somehow both create the feeling of speed, for the fighter pilots, and make the anti-air component dangerous at any altitude. Increasing the complexity of the whole air dynamic, regardless of being perceived from ground or air, or both, simultaneously, will only add more and new challenge to the game. And think about the other perspective, that only helicopters are implemented, and then we have a game layout being smaller than project reality. Is that a step forward, gaming wise, or is it a step backwards, again not graphical but game wise? For my part, I would love to make battle plans implementing radar, missile and gun tactics, with or against fighters and helicopters, not to mention air borne decoys too, electronic warfare, jamming and so on. Then again, maybe that’s ARMA?
×