Jump to content

mangoman65

Member
  • Content count

    27
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About mangoman65

  • Rank
    Fireteam Leader

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. Infrared for Vehicles

    From what I recall, Insurgents were up against thermal imaging back in PR (And on Kokan, they had to contend with Little Birds too) and from what I remember, I don't think it was too unbalanced. That being said, on a number of maps, the insurgents had lots of buildings to use as cover which allowed them to hunker down nicely. I'd certainly like to see it implemented. Though as you say, some thought would have to be put into balancing it.
  2. Squad needs “Combat Chef” role... because the real military does it.
  3. Anti Tank

    I disagree. A Stryker can take 3 RPG’s and still just about trundle back to main for repairs if the gods smile on you and your crew. Scout Cars are reasonably durable for what they are. In service BTR’s and, If I recall correctly, most APC’s are capable of withstanding small arms fire only, not anti-tank weaponry. The solution should not be the power of The AT weaponry you contend with, but the drivers positioning and how they make use of the APC/vehicle. Driving into a city is, and always should be a death sentence. Traversing woodlands in a vehicle is also a pretty risky thing to be doing. I’d argue that the curse of using vehicles is that, despite their firepower, they are inherently vulnerable. And I’d like to see it stay that way
  4. Where are the knifes? Cmon!

    Rifle Bayonets would be neat for say the British Army/American forces. Rebels/Insurgents would have just a standard knife. Overall, I'd rather not see pointy things being thrust into people on the Squad battlefields. Not really sure if players can be trusted enough to NOT go on suicidal knife charges and special forces slasher missions behind enemy lines.
  5. As mentioned, in PR they did have the JDAM strike which worked pretty well. As for long range artillery, I don't really like the idea. I can tolerate mortars because there's some degree of player involvement in the success of a mortar team. Players first have to find a target, and constantly communicate with the teams to make sure the shots are accurate. Long range artillery would, in my opinion, do three things: - If it was player controlled, take players away from the battle, at a detriment to the fun that's had in the actual infantry fighting. - If it was a called in, commander ability, like the artillery in Battlefield 2, you're essentially giving teams the ability to screw over the enemy at a moments notice without having to put in any real planning, effort or skill. - Mortars would be basically obsolete. That's just my opinion anyway
  6. Help?

    Not a bug... Just good intelligence from HQ.
  7. The only other channel i'd probably vouch for is maybe a "Vehicle Channel" just because sometimes it would be nice to have a direct line to the crew, as local get's a bit crowded sometimes when you're a passenger. Local chat basically IS the fireteam channel. I find if it's a good game and I'm leading, managing the radio chatter of both the squad channel and the command channel is difficult enough. You don't need an additional layer adding to that. A squad leader should issue orders to the fireteam via the squad channel. The fireteam should use the squad channel to acknowledge the order, then carry it out. If there's anything else the squad leader should know, then the squad channel can be used. Assuming no-one ha swallowed their microphone and everyone speaks clearly, there should be no confusion regarding who's doing what.
  8. Possible helicopter controls.

    Joystick and Throttle support would be welcome.
  9. AASv(*)

    It's a tricky one. Whilst they've committed resources that could be used to reinforce other areas of the battle, they have in essence occupied one, or potentially two squads from the opposing team and delayed their deployment too, because unless that point gets captured, the team isn't going anywhere. But as you say, if squads communicate, a successful push by the other team to stall the rushers at one of their uncapped objectives is more than enough to restore the battle to equilibrium. With all that being said, I've always found rushing objectives to be a really cheap tactic that often sends one team into disarray for either a good 5 minutes whilst they quash the threat, or, if the rush is particularly effective), for the whole game. And if that happens you can't really have a good match because the rest of the squads that sit there twiddling their thumbs, often find themselves having to trudge all the way back to the firstborn objective just to shoo off kamikaze BTR pirate raiders whilst the other team end up pushing all the way forward to their opponents main base and no-one really gets to imitate any manauevers, cunning plots or fight any game swaying battles because most of the fighting hasn't really left one teams first capable points. Still, rushing with speed and aggressiveness in an attempt to catch your opponent off guard has always been a viable tactic that has been used by military commanders for thousands of years, and I don't think Squad should be about limiting what legitimate tactics teams can use to win battles.
  10. Animation for the reloading + an idea

    Project Reality (Which, if you're not familiar, was the spiritual predecessor to Squad that was born from the early days of Battlefield 2) used to let you go into a surrender stance is you right clicked whilst playing as a soldier without a kit, a pilot, or a insurgent collaborator. It was really goofy though and players only really used to use it to high 10 each other or worship landing helicopters by moving the mouse up and down when they got tired of standing around waiting for things to spawn in. I fear the same would probably happen on Squad if it ever got implemented! Also, on PR's insurgency, if you managed to cable tie an insurgent (surrendered or just caught off guard), the cache hunting team got a number of intelligence points which went towards revealing the location of the caches. The trouble was, no-one surrendered (why would they when they were essentially giving away the location of their caches) and getting close enough to tie anyone up was a complete nightmare. What it did do was introduce a penalty system. So if you shot a collaborator (who were basically civilians with medpacks and stones) who wasn't close to the enemy or helping a fighter up, your team lost tickets and intelligence points to punish you for essentially breaking the Geneva Convention. A similar system might work on Squad's insurgency mode, but again, as mentioned by madcat, surrendering simply wouldn't do it because why on earth would any insurgent want to that when it basically grants the opposing team to rain down mortars and gunfire on your beloved secret stash of weapons and dangerous explosives.
  11. Show tickets left in game browser

    You might be able to, I mean if someone joins the server and says "guys, the browser's telling me there's about five minutes left in this game" it doesn't necessarily mean the team knows exactly who's winning or losing. With that being said, it's not exactly hard to deduce that you're team is imminently going to be victorious if the game is telling you there's about 3 minutes left and you have about 300/200 tickets remaining. I find the thing that makes Squad so enjoyable and rewarding is the sense that, you can never really tell if you're ahead during those closely fought matches. I remember playing Kokan last week as the US, and we'd be moving forwards and backwards between Tempest Estate and Market for the whole match. By the end we got pushed back to Village and our team fought back to recapture it. With about 10 tickets left we'd all called "GG" and accepted our inevitable defeat. We won by TWO tickets. After it everyone in chat was so hyped because it had been such a closely fought, well played match in which no-one could really tell where it was going. Its that kind of suspense that makes rounds in Squad all the more exciting and encourages people to co-operate more! Whilst your suggestion wasn't a bad one, and while joining during the final few minutes is slightly irritating in the sense you've missed most of the action, at least you know it won't be long till you get stuck into a fresh, new game.
  12. A dynamic map might be useful though. So say if you have lots of deployables, HAB's, FOB's and such cluttered in a close proximity, your cursor shifts icons out the way or maybe brings them to the foreground when it hovers over particular them to make viewing things a bit more distinguished. As you say, less is more, and I agree that tthe map tends to get a bit cluttered at times, so OW might want to figure out a way of making marker placement more efficient.
  13. New Possible Roles? Whats on the horizon?

    I don't believe the game really needs any more classes as such, apart from perhaps something to conpliment the addition of brand new game assets such as the implementation of aircraft, MBT's etc... A bigger arsenal of weapons to choose from would be nice though!
  14. Funny - annoying glitch, WHERE IS MY GUN?

    I think it has something to do with leaving a squad whilst having a kit selected in the menu or something. It's happened to me before just after I left a squad and joined another one. For some reason, I kept my AR kit, my hands disappeared and I could see my own eyeballs hovering rather spookily whenever I turned my head on the bike.
×