Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Caliell

  • Rank
    Fireteam Leader
  1. Update to Squad Voice Chat

    This should probably be one of the priorities. Surprisingly I found Squad voice chat is actually far more outdated than Planetside 2 voice communications. The whole problem with the game is the are is substantial number of people who play Squad that tend to flood the channels with rubbish. There is currently no way to mute individuals or specific channels just like in real life due to too much traffic. Honestly and frankly I am getting tired of some douche nozzle bragging about his kills or how he is "leet" or constantly throwing non your mama jokes instead of playing the game. Its not the fact that everyone is such a douche, but Squad is not just another linear first person shooter, but actually requires quite a bit of teamwork. The worst offenders are probably when in Command Chat you hear two squad leaders throwing bullshit, instead of trying to coordinate the facts. Some would argue "this is just a game dude. Chillax." True, but the game's point is to win or at least compete well to have fun experience. For the most I would believe it not fun, when the fun is being destroyed by some chatty Nelly, who keeps talking about non essential bullshit.
  2. I was part of armored regiment, while not the tanker myself I sat in Abrams before. One time as part of OP duty as .50 gunner with the tank surrounded by concrete barriers. There is enough room space for the gunner or commander without climbing out to switch out spots just fine. In fact turret of Abrams is way roomier in comparison to anything Russian counterparts offer. The funny part, I am Russian myself (immigrant who served in US Army) and sat in T72 once as well. Now talking about claustrophobia? T72 is the most claustrophobic experience I ever felt. That's not the experience in Abrams tank that have enough space to move relatively free while wearing body armor. If you are talking about tank commander taking over and manually firing from his sights and gunner switching to loader position its not that hard. As for two gunners on the top of Abrams? With CROWS you don't really load since the ammo boxes tend to be larger while loader's 240 operates just like any other or in game 240B. Here is the video from the gunner of Abrams Start at 0:37 you will notice the gunner standing. Here is inside of T72 (regardless of series, the amount of space is the same). Start at 1:44 and compare it tot he first video. You will get the idea of what exactly does it mean moving around "relatively free" and being "encased in cramped steel box" Abrams have enough space to move around with relative ease. Easy "enough" for the gunner and commander to switch positions. As again 240B on Abrams is akin to the sidearm issued to an infantryman or a shotgun for the breacher. It meant to be as back up weapon and/or weapon of the situation. Regardless gamewise, I believe it will be fun and balanced since it will allow for that loader to plink at sneaking RPG guys around the tank at least on one side of the tank, while the commander cover the field of fire on the other side or searches for target.
  3. There is actually pretty good reason why loaders have 240 on their side. - for the very same reason why some service members are issued sidearms. In the sense this makes Abrams perform better in situations if Abrams is being overran by infantry, or the main cannon is out and you need fire superiority to defend the tank. Furthermore gamewise T72 already have advantage that is better than Abrams extra gunner. It have low profile, therefore better at being placed behind such things as sandbags or defilade. As for loaders passive haste or penalty isn't it one and the same in the sense? Abrams having 20 penalty without loader or slower default reload without one? Which also brings to the point realismwise . No, if loader is killed or wounded Abrams does not become suddenly useless without one. The gunner can perform both duties as nessesary obviously at slower rate but functionaly none the less
  4. First of all that type of survivability depends on the driver and so far I've seen MRAP/MAT-V gunners seem to have good survivability as long as someone is not sniping them from above. There is no problem there, otherwise MRAPs would of not been of the good choice as fire support for rushes. Techies without the gun shield are different story on the other hand. But those are Rebel techies. I don't get it how is it "arguably fun gameplay for him" when all you do is sit in the tank and do not contribute to anything but the passive bonus? That's like saying it is fun to be 87 year old in the nursing home with sarcastic nurse that does not listen to your requests. In either case Loader's 240B position is realistic and it will provide good compromise between being close to realistic and if it will provide passive reload haste for the main cannon, will be fun. Maybe there are people who enjoy sitting buttoned up in the tank and do nothing, but I would think that majority of people enjoy "being part of the action" and being 240b gunner/loader sounds like fun to me at least, regardless of consequences of snipers and such. This shouldn't be an issue since gunner's basket and/or ballistic shield tend to be adequate for such position regardless that you say loader's survival will be short (which is simply untrue due to the simple observation of MRAP gunners vs Techie gunners and MRAP gunners are vastly less killed due to full 360 degree directional protection of the basket). The only time that I see loader die in such situation is only if the tank crew is acting recklessly, which isn't the game or tank's fault. That would be player/operator's error and therefore deserved death. The only valid argument I see in the whole thing is "infantry to vehicle users ratio" which is kind of redundant since typically people who run dedicated vehicle teams tend to be in their own dedicated vehicle squads and avoid running with infantry, doing their own thing regardless of any level of "Encouragement" by the game and developers for "More infantry Squads."
  5. Most of the parts are true, but some are false. For example "manual fire" of commander's .50 Cal is no longer done manually. Most of the tanks had been upgraded with CROWs system you see on Stryker in game (real life CROWs have thermal and infrared night vision systems on it though). This is not M1A2 exclusive upgrade and neither is modern ballistic gunner's shield for Loader's side 240B. In fact when I was in Iraq, most of additions to the turrets we had on vehicles, such as Humvees, Abrams, and yes armored LMTVs and 5 tons (Uparmored version of Logistics truck you see in game with the gun mounted on the top of its roof) was done by hand with armor and turret kits sent to either mechanics or operators. I had to wield "Hillbilly Armor" myself. This is another strength of M1 series in a way just like T72 series. - It is extremely modular chassis system. CROWs and Ballistic shield/Gunner's Basket are not series exclusive. Its just some versions are better equipped or designed for better performance under certain conditions such as M1A2 TUSK version of Abrams that is equipped with CROWs, Gunner's basket for loader, Bird Cage at the rear, ERA armor on the sides, possibly that not so secret anymore DUKE (we dont talk about it), with Battle Network a.k.a. INVIS.
  6. Well I basically suggested as such for the loader to be optional, yet at the same time useful addition to the Abrams tank crew. My suggestion in fact creates both optional, fun, and useful loader position while making Abrams closer to realistic variant. However one thing to point out as player, and I have to assume the vast majority of players also presume that once Abrams will be in the game, the combat loss cost of such vehicle will be enormous. Notice the current trend with APCs. In majority of the matches they are not fully utilized due to squad leaders realizing that putting such vehicles in hazardous position could spell the end of the game match in favor of good, coordinated Anti Tank teams. With recent TOW addition (and future Russian counterpart Kornet, I hope smoke grenades work against laser guidance though since that's what the smoke grenades are primary for), using armored vehicles for direct offensive action became extremely risky. This is no exception to tanks. Tanks are not invincible and if made realistic both Abrams and T72B3 have many weak points, especially some like T72 carousel basket that will send that turret fly sky high and Abrams' rear exhaust port that is pretty hefty target at the rear. If an Abrams destroyed will cost something of 50 or 75 tickets, I believe the "infantry problem population ratio lock" will solve itself. Abrams will become that alternative option that will be akin to Texas Hold Em Up "All in" move. - Extremely high risk for extremely high reward. As in this will become not "the go to at the beginning of the match" option, thus everyone and their mother will not run for Abrams (except highly likely experienced veteran vehicle crews), but squad leaders will have to think twice and use Abrams sparingly and will prefer to go with your Bread and Butter Trooper Transport/Logi and Walk for the most part or the most matches.
  7. Well maybe because some of us unfortunately cannot afford to have nice things, so we do with what we can. The only way I can think of how to make "graphics abuse" fixed is by optimizing and upping the game minimum requirements where they are on par of the lowest settings. But as again, business wise you are cutting off quite a few customers who could otherwise afford the game to play.
  8. I actually got erroneously banned once because of it. When I first got Squad I had potato PC to play on and the only way I could get anywhere near 60fps is by playing on lowest settings possible. What not everyone knows and I did not know that low settings also on many maps make layering grass and bushes and rocks either move or disappear. My situation happened on Kamdesh invasion map, where I as insurgent managed to crawl behind US forces and began plinking at them from the hill with impunity. I was clearly able to see them all because of low settings which made placeholder bushes and foliage disappear. Imagine my surprise when I was banned from the server with short message saying Aimbot. I subsequently contacted server admins and they did investigation. Obviously it was found out I wasn't aimbotting and was cleared but the fact that how drastically the game changes the server manager made YouTube video about it.
  9. The reason why Bad Company 2 have it is due to the fact that it have Frostbite engine specifically built for it. Squad uses Unreal (don't know which version probably Unreal 4) which does not have coding added into it for such physics behavior. Notice how in game built models of sandbags and FOBs act. They all get destroyed the same way with pre coded animations. Squad developers was able to add them into the game since built sets like that had none to little impact on the engine template of physics. Murder holes will require work that will have to weave the code for it into the game and at the same time not disrupt it and not come out buggy as hell. For murder holes you literally have to alter the engine code to the degree.
  10. ^ Requires so much work, that it might need the patch in 6 months or so of its own. In that time so many other priorities can be done and over with, like implementing Main Battle Tanks, creating Combat Engineer/Sapper class (to disarm and plant mines and/or explosives), fix Wound Dressing and Medkit bug where bandages and Medkit do not work (which I find comical since Dressing in real life is for exactly what it means "To dress up the wound" not to fix it, to fix or plug the wound you use other items like Hyfin seal for chest wounds and Quickclot Gauze to stuff the wound, but that will be "too realistic"). . Kornet for Russian and Rebel sides instead of "TOW for Everybody." This list could go on and on and on..... Basically it is easier to create stuff from the scratch in game than to add stuff to the game when it comes to designing.
  11. If you notice or noticed that Community Manager replied to the topic and mentioned that they are currently designing the tanks to be 2 Man of Gunner combined with Driver and Tank Commander (both Abrams and T72B3), which is neither realistic nor I believe is fun since all it does is copying Battlefield 2 or Battlefield Series type of Tank Control and most of all believe it or not this actually makes tanks weaker. The larger the crew of the tank, the better the control of the tank. Having what I suggested will add unique form of the tank crew that mimic closer to realistic tank crews while not taking away from the game in such way. In fact basically what I have suggested will create mobile version of 240B machine gunner with ballistic shield besides Tank Commander's .50 Cal. Thus you will have possibly that dedicated squad that likes to get together just to run vehicles during matches. 4 Member squad of the tank crew. 3 Gunners, 1 driver for Abrams. The critical note I'd like to add: In the current modern days that Squad is trying to follow, the tanks operate in Urban Combat way more than in conventional role of the spearhead of the conventional battle offensive. Most of the fights in Squad themselves are at intermediate to close range, even when it comes to vehicles. Developers with the coming of tanks will possibly have to add the APC killer of MBTs though as well. - ATGM missiles currently missing on BTRs and BMPs such as Fagot and Sager. Also need Brittish Jackal added into the game.
  12. True, but that's not my point. The point is OPFOR against US Main have to cut off the route and not necessarily beat US to the punch for FOB Papanov. So, even if they are late to the party, even hap hazard push to the village and its surrounding hilly woods provides huge advantage. That bridge and heavily forested road through Village to Papanov with its high elevation hills on both sides and deep culverts on both sides of the road creates perfect scenario to capitalize on cutting off the entire route. More often than not you will see someone driving an APC or BRDM or Techie into one of the culverts on the side of the road or into the woods and open up on any and every vehicle going North from US Main. Even taking Western secondary route requires vehicles to go through village or through enemy territory, putting itself in substantial risk.
  13. Thank you. Here is the big thing that I noticed in games like Squad, Post Scriptum, old school Planetside 1, Red Orchestra. - Everyone to one degree or the other wants to feel "useful" in the game match and not as bored deadweight. Obviously dead weight loader is good example of it, but at the same time it is simply unrealistic (in the way unfair treatment for the much venerable US Abrams) to have only the crew 2, when the game could be coded with relative ease to have everyone in the crew contribute (and therefore feel useful) for 3 gunner positions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams#/media/File:Abrams-transparent.png Notice how well this could be set up. Loader acting as the gunner covering the left 180 Degrees of M1A1 and Commander's CROWS the right side and at the same time having no compromise on the hunter/killer ability. Obviously the gunner is in his/her own world with that coaxial and the main cannon. I one of the few who prefers to play as either vehicle gunner/driver, or as medic (don't know why since I was former medic in US Army and should be "mediced out"). This is where I think also to add that drivers need to have some kind of game score added to them as well. Seems a bit unfair that someone does the critical key job of positioning, dodging all those incoming missiles, maneuvering on enemy positions, vehicles, and infantry to get no reward for it. Because of this I believe Driver is essential position in Squad as much as many players and developers may disagree. Here is quote from my TC when I was 19D in the Army. "Driver is the most important position in every single military vehicle because of his or her actions, it is he/she who decides if the vehicle will fight well or die." -As mentioned because of this, I believe Squad needs to also give kills or "Assist kill count" in the post match score board for drivers just like in real life, when a tank makes the kill notch on their vehicle, it is awarded for entire crew of the vehicle and not just the gunner.
  14. I am hoping as my original post they will take this suggestion to the heart and make autoloader as the active "Tertiary Gunner" position with 240B machine gun with ballistic shield or Gunner's basket just like TUSK version of Abrams have. That way loader will not be useless dead weight. Depending on the balance issues with the game, this position should offer Passive haste bonus for loading and/or reloading (when switching ordinance types) when the loader is present in his/her turret. Perhaps factory stock T 72 or even T 80s could suffice to make it fair. Those tanks are easier to destroy and they are appropriate as "Trophy Tanks" for Insurgents and Rebels, but obviously at the cost of lower ticket value. That could be realistic, just think about the expense of losing in real life Abrams to catastrophic kill in comparison to even two cheaply made T 72s or T 80s.
  15. Notice how far is the second exit and how vital it is to capture Papanov and build FOB somewhere there and between the next point. If OPFOR rushes the village, the second exit provides very poor alternative due to how far that roundabout to Papanov, not to mention you have to literally make the drive through now enemy controlled territory. The only way I see how you said to implement such thing is to make Squad akin to Company of Heroes, where capturing "Zones/Sectors" instead of "Objective Points" will be feasible. Otherwise the game engine cannot register the actual "Encirclement" at this point.