Jump to content

40mmrain

Member
  • Content count

    267
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by 40mmrain

  1. How Armored Combat Feels

    Trust me, this wouldn't make the driver irrelevant. A tank squad leader can be responsible for communication and coordination between the team, his squad, his own tank, and spotting/shooting with his remote MG. Driving on top of all of that renders him woefully overworked. IMO it's just too much of a burden to ask players to have a group of people to queue with, just so that they can get a decent experience in armour. Right now, playing any other role is fine if you play alone, armour not so much. I think this is a pretty good solution that is also realistic, I think pretty much all tanks have this capability (Commander overriding driving controls).
  2. How Armored Combat Feels

    This is because in PR there was no commander-driver distinction. They were compressed into one slot in the vehicle. I personally think that this was for the better. In Squad is that if you want to have control of a vehicle you can NOT do it from the driver's seat, otherwise your situational awareness will simply be far too poor to do any kind of meaningful decision making. This does reflect real vehicles, of course the man in control of the vehicle should be in the commander's seat, which is not the driver's. But.. the problem with this is that a commander, no matter how good he is, is limited severely by both how good and how compliant his driver is. Driving is a complex skill, you need to receive the orders of the commander and translate them into real maneuver that accomplishes his goal. This is not the task for a robot, it requires you to have a sort of critical relationship with his orders, as you will need to fill in blanks, and make your own decisions on the fly that might be required to keep the vehicle alive. If you're the driver, and commander says "move forward into cover behind that building" you need to do as he says, but the actual angle, and exact positioning you choose is yours. The commander may also be busy with other tasks, when there is imminent danger, and as the driver you need to have a sense to recognize this and move the vehicle away from it. I could go on, but the point is that being a good driver requires a lot. But again the driver cannot be the leader in Squad, because he has very poor situational awareness. The commander MUST be in control, he has the vision, and the freedom of cognitive capacity to make long-term strategic decisions, and can coordinate long-range engagements. Where the crux of the problem is, is that no matter how good the commander is, he will ALWAYS be sabotaged by a crappy driver. No matter how good his strategy is, and how good his commands are, if the driver cannot quickly and intelligently translate them into effective movement and positioning of the vehicle, the operation is doomed. Worse, if the driver is simply bad, and makes unilateral decisions. The opposite side of the coin is true as well, no matter how good a driver is, if he has a bad commander, he simply won't have the situational awareness required being fed to him to make good decisions. I believe the solution to this is to allow our Commander to be able to override the driver's controls at will, just as he can designate the turret to where he pleases. This would mean that a low-skill driver would still be valuable as someone who can take the role during non-critical times, and when necessary the commander can take it up. I think this is a better solution than simply combining the two roles, because if the commander has to do all the commander work (including the remote MG) as well as driving, all the time, he would be overworked, and the vehicle would be incredibly inefficient. Trust me, I 2-man tanks and IFVs from time to time, and it feels like we're playing with a serious handicap. In PR, these two roles could be compressed with less problems, because there was no remote MG, and armour was considerably simplified (damage model, ballistics, turret speed, and vehicle handling were all easier in that game). Also where the hell are thermals in Squad? And actually effective HE shells? Should be in the game now that AT is actually strong..
  3. SQUAD could be amazing, but it lacks care

    I really don't think Squad is a casual game masquerading as a hardcore game. It's simply caught in the middle of these two ideals, and has failed to find a balance. There are aspects of Squad that are "hardcore." Playing vehicles is insanely punishing, and requires considerable coordination to not simply get rocked by anti-tank and enemy armour constantly. Successfully attacking and defending objectives is not just a matter of standing on, or walking towards a point, but rather an active attempt at encirclement or breaking from encirclement. Thoughtful consideration of FOB volume and location affects the outcome of the game. Actual coordination between and within squads is rewarded, at least somewhat. It is simply not the case that you can join the game, spawn in, and have a good time. Even as a regular infantryman, the amount of information that you're give about where the enemy is is weak, it's common for new players to have absolutely no clue where they're getting shot from, and how to prevent it. All of these things point to the fact that Squad is hardcore, at least in some sense. Hardcoreness is a SCALE, not a binary condition. I think a lot of players do quit, because it is actually too punishing for them, not that they have figured the game out and realized its facile. However, I do agree that the developers should have more courage in punishing the players. PR's medic system meant that being by yourself made you essentially useless as an infantryman. You had ONE bandage and that wasn't even guaranteed to stop the bleeding if you were hurt enough. This mechanic's removal in Squad means that players can run off by themselves, get shot, and really, even though they're penalized a bit, get on just fine. I believe there are deeper issues to the way in which a match in Squad unfolds, and they are mostly related to the gamemodes available, and the spawn systems, both of which need some kind of overhaul from a top-down perspective (IE we have a general philosophy of what we want and completely create anew from it, rather than just keep tweaking and preening and picking at it until it gets better).
  4. Beta 17 Notes from Game Design

    Love this kind of insight into the game's philosophy and policies. There is some future stuff that gets me really excited about the future depth of the game.
  5. What was your most bad ass moment in Squad?

    Playing as an armour crewmen and being surrounded by a mass of friendly infantry that are assaulting, providing immense mutual support feels so damn right. You can provide huge amounts of suppression for them to advance, while they completely suppress AT users from hitting you on a flank. I feel like a literal hero when I pull my tank in front of a couple of downed friendlies, and act as a shield of steel, smoke, and lead while a medic works to revive them all.
  6. Insurgency

    It's been utterly neglected. Sad thing is people loved it in PR. If OWI could just copy.paste pr's insurgency ruleset that would be super cool. Theres a million reasons why PR's insurgency was so fun and they basically all got thrown out in Squad haha.
  7. congratulations on observing that you've hit the enemy in the arm before! The post I responded to explicitly said "3 to the chest." That's wrong. if youre 3 hitting people with 5.56, youre hitting the limbs.
  8. V12 no ammo

    OP is presented with a problem; no ammo. He has the power to solve this problem by resupplying an FOB, or just acquiring any vehicle in the game really. Instead he decides that someone else should solve this problem for him. Thus demonstrates the pathology of narcissism.
  9. It is said by the developers (such as from this Q&A video) that in Squad's future there will be a commander role, a single player whose job it is to lead the team and dictate their over-arching strategy. This is unsurprising, Squad's predecessor Project Reality had a commander position as well. However there is a problem; Project Reality's commander was a failure as a design feature. It was rarely occupied, and when it was, it was usually not as a team leader that was obeyed, but rather as a UAV operator, or someone temporarily holding the position to approve an artillery strike or remotely destroy an FOB. The reason for this is something I have pondered about without any real answers for some time. Why is it that the players will voluntarily obey their squad leaders, but not the commander? Why is it that it is seen as correct and justified to order around your squad members, and kick them if they disobey, but the prospect of a commander that can order squad leaders around punish/replace them if they disobey is generally met with skepticism or disdain such as in posts like this? I think I have come to an answer to the first question posed. The reason that people do follow the orders of the SLs is in part, because they control the spawns. Spawns in Squad are everything. They are in essence, a simulation of a constant supply of reinforcements, more spawn-points mean you have superior numbers to the enemy. Not only that, but spawn points also maneuvering. They dictate what direction you will attack or defend an objective from. In Squad a team with far superior spawn point placement and volume wins, every time, no exceptions. Squad leaders worth the oxygen and bandwidth they consume know this, and will work to always be constructing superior spawn points. Squad members may not be fully aware of this principle, but they are slaves to the spawn system. Squad leaders will create spawns that serve the objectives they intend to fulfill, and by doing this create a path of least resistance for their squad members to follow their orders. Combined with other mechanics that reward being grouped together such as the medic system, there is all the incentive to listen to a squad leader's general orders. Why would a player choose not to obey the squad leader, which would involve spawning at a location much farther away from a relevant objective, and therefore the action? Why would the player choose to not group up, when doing so is rewarded with success, and playing by yourself is punished? This is the key to Squad's success as a game that encourages teamwork. There is a mutually beneficial relationship between squad members and squad leaders. Listening to a squad leader's orders gives you the best spawns and reduces tedium, and playing as a unit gives you the highest chance of success which is obviously more fun than failure. In fact, it is even more subtle than this. Players may not even be consciously deciding to follow an SL's orders, but because the SL creates their spawns, they will act as if they were following his orders. Pretty good game design, ain't it? No such relationship existed between the commander and squad leaders in PR. Where squad members depend on and can be controlled by squad leaders, there is no dependence on the commander for the SLs, and the CO has little way to control them. As we might expect there was little respect for the commander's "authority" in PR. The solution to this problem I think is obvious. Try and design the game such that there exists a relationship between the CO and SL that is comparable to the SL and squad member. This solution I believe lies in the spawn system. Again, it is my belief that the spawn system is the most fundamental part of Squad, any way to control the players will likely come from it. What I propose is that the FOB placement go from the Squad Leader's to the Commanders. Currently Squad Leaders have the power to FOBs wherever they choose. By simply taking this power away from them, the commander can dictate the SL's actions in a a subtle way, in the same way that the SLs currently dictate squad member's actions with FOB and rally point construction. What this would look like, is the Commander will be able to mark the map with "FOB build locations", and only within a radius of it will SLs be able to put FOBs. Obviously this system can be refined in many ways, but the general idea is there. This would let the commander generally dictate the general strategy of his team and give him real power, without needlessly micromanaging. Currently SLs want to win the game by attacking or defending objectives successfully and to do this they need to construct good spawn points, so that they can direct their squad members and the rest of the team. With the commander dictating FOB placement, they will have the choice to either operate outside of his orders and suffer from failure and lack of coordination, or they will obey his general orders and enjoy success and coordination. This is the exact same paradigm that the squad members in Squad currently face over whether or not to obey their SLs. It is a proven and effective way of fostering a mutually beneficial relationship between commanding and subordinate players.
  10. When Squad's first public alpha became playable the US army and Insurgent faction were essentially equal in capability. Both sides had non-magnified rifles, and vehicles were not part of the game. Because of this it was appropriate for symmetrical gamemode/map layouts to exist. Slowly, this has changed; each patch has widened the gap between the conventionals and the irregulars. First riflemen gained magnified optics, then strong armoured vehicles with remote turrets were introduced, and now both the AR and MG kits for the both the russians and US army have magnification, and of course the UK army is not short of superior weapons, having a very high distribution of optics, foregrips, and bipods. Despite this, many of the older layers remain almost completely unchanged, and even new maps that come out involve symmetrical layers of conventional vs. irregulars. In games where each side has equal skill, these games are just not fun. The irregular force is destined to be outkilled, and if they win, it's only because they simply start with more tickets, or the conventionals had a few bad players who misused vehicles grossly and sucked up a bunch of tickets. I am not the only one to notice this. Every patch, and regularly between patches, many forum users point out this disparity in balance. However, unlike them, I know that simply giving out a bunch of optics to the irregulars or taking them away form the conventionals is just a bland solution, that homogenizes the game. The way to have balanced matches between a force that is much better equipped than another force is to give the worse equipped force a terrain advantage. By simply forcing the better equipped to attack positions that are inherently easy to defend and strategically useful, you achieve balance. The invasion and insurgency game modes are basically designed for this. The developers can easily control the balance of the game with these game modes by putting the flags and caches in easy to defend locations while giving the defending team enough time to set up to defend them. Insurgency needs to be fixed and made actually good, like its Project Reality counterpart. Invasion's rules need to be finalized. Because of all of the advantages that regulars have, it's time for the days of the symmetrical layers on maps like Kokan, Kamdesh, Gorodok, Logar, Mestia, etc. to go, and be replaced with layers that properly balance the difference of equipment in the forces with terrain advantages.
  11. 3 Man TOW

    It would be nice if all of the deployable weapons were un-tied to FOBs to be honest. If there were an inventory system for players and vehicles, we could just load the weapon into vehicles that had the appropriate capacity to hold them and take them anywhere. There's no reason why an SPG, or mortar tubes need to have a radio. Especially light CSWs like the .50 or light mortars could even been disassembled and transported on foot, with parts spread between multiple riflemen. Imagine if you just rapidly deploy a .50 cal without the need for three guys to huddle together to place a radio thats not with 400m of another one, have a big loud truck dump supplies, then have SL and SL only place it. Imagine if you could then move/rotate/cant the thing as the situation calls for it too.
  12. Well I noticed that A LOT of the layers in 11.1 were updated, and many of the conventional vs. irregular were tweaked/or removed, and the miltia leader got a scope thanks devs
  13. https://www.reddit.com/r/joinsquad/comments/7xeh9g/squad_game_mechanics_post/ 5.56 does 62 damage. It's a two hit kill in the chest up to about 375m .50 cal does 152 damage, it always kills to the chest
  14. "Believability" of maps, realism

    Kamdesh's roads might be bizarre, but I will protest against forcing choke points or "interesting terrain" into maps. Kamdesh's lack of strategically valuable features is actually what can make it unique, compared to other battlegrounds. There are no obvious strongholds to place FOBs, there are no chokepoints that limit the mobility and ability to out-flank the enemy. There are also no dominant hill positions to lord over the entire map, but the map is also not flat, meaning that combat is limited to shorter ranges. This in itself makes Kamdesh unique. Fighting on (the good layers of) Kamdesh is an exercise of speed and medium range combat. A lot of Squad's maps are more along the lines of fortress FOBs on strategically valuable points that are either large defensible structures or dominant hills (FOB Popanov, Stepne, Storage Site, Crucible Alpha come to mind.) Kamdesh can play with more subtlety than this if you could let it. The territory control game mode will make it good.
  15. For the last time. Those things are either not exclusive to ins and are done better by conventionals, are completely non viable, or are not nearly enough to make up for huge disadvatanges.
  16. The whole point of my essay was that there is no other way to play the game than to go head to head because that is how the maps and game mode are designed. Your suggestions for how the unconventionals should play does not reflect the reality of the game. I dont care about "sneaky rpg teams" as us infantry on kamdesh or whatever. They have no effect on me spanking the enemy in infantry engagements on the points or between them. As far as setting up ambushes outaide of main to get an upperhand. Ill ask, what stops the us from doing this? No.. what stop then from doing it better? Techis die to a very short burst of .50 cal. Nevermind how powerful amd accurate the TOW is as an ambush tool. Nothing stops them. The us beat the ins at their own game too. They should not be on symmetrical map layouts.
  17. hmm thats interesting because I have read first hand accounts of 7.62x54 failing to penetrate during a close range engagement, and the soldier reported that he felt absolutely nothing, with only mild bruising after the fact.
  18. Glad you ignored my entire argument that transportation in squad is rarely important or ideal because of habs.
  19. Rounds that dont penetrate armour do almost nothing. The amount of force the bullet projects is the same as the felt recoil when firing. Basic newtonian physics, equal, opposite forces, etc. The plate spreads the force out to a surface area probably a similar size to the butt of the rifle so the stress is the same. There should be almost no "camera jerk" Anyways, im 100% for body armour being in Squad. Body armour was actually in project reality, factions thst had armour had 20% more hp. It was primitive but it was there. The developers just need to pay special attention to balancing it is all.
  20. Im sick to death of this opinion. APCs in real life, and in literally every video game ever from the most rigorous simulation to the most unrealistic are used as fire support and interdiction as well as transporting infantry. And here's the thing - transporting infantry in Squad is not often necessary or even intelligent; because almost all of infantry maneuver in the game is done via HAB building. The reason why APCs have a bunch of room for dudes in real life is because the infantry have to actually get to the battle. THere is no such requirement in Squad when you can construct spawn points at the foot of the objective. Once actually in combat the infantry dismount, and fight alongside the armour in a mutually supportive manner. This is not unlike how in Squad, infantry squads will spawn in HABs near an objective and the APCs will sit behind these infantry while they advance. Like, look at these vehicles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_Bradley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coyote_Reconnaissance_Vehicle They're just IFVs/APCs with better recon equipment and no ability to transport infantry because hey, commanders realized that the vehicles are completely effective in the role of interdiction/recon. There is nothing stupid about not using an APC for transport in Squad.
  21. the MG role without a scope is pretty useless compared to AR/Riflemen/Marksmen until suppression, body armour, and surface penetration are fully realized in the game. The extra damage it deals isn't nearly enough to make up for the lack of optic. The British probably just shouldnt have one until then if it isnt going to have a scope. All it does is suck up slots for better kits in your Squad.
  22. BTR82A vs Bradley/Warrior

    It does already. It didn't before and that was a bug.
  23. VERY Concernd about the TOW missle

    no it definitely should from a REALISM perspective. Do you want me to prove it? https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.ca/2017/01/leopard-2-in-syria-part-2.html Look what happens to a modern MBT when it gets hit with one ATGM. It gets knocked out, consistently. IFVs are, obviously, much more poorly armoured compared to an MBT. The Leo 2A4 may not be today's hottest tank, but the Bradley and Warrior aint exactly young either. This is not up for debate. Should armoured vehicles in Squad have armour upgrade packages, and if applicable, APS? Sure. I would love for that to be part of the game. But should vehicles that all essentially lightly armoured by able to survive a blow from the most powerful anti-tank tool that infantry have, on a direct hit? Hell no. And as for a GAMEPLAY PERSPECTIVE you should care how long I have played the predecessor to Squad, because the two games are extremely similar, and so experience in that game translates to knowledge in Squad. Project Reality has had deployable ATGMs for years that have always 1-hit-killed every vehicle in the game, no exceptions. These deployable ATGMs have better optics than what is currently in Squad, and are able to shoot as far as the game can render. Yet, they're absolutely not overpowered. They come with serious drawbacks, theyre completely static and require the user to expose their weak little fleshy body. If they want to have very good sightlines, that means everyone can see them too! There's also a hard-limit to how many you can have on the map, and they take a lot of time and effort to actually deploy. Yes they're good, but they're also very counterable.
  24. VERY Concernd about the TOW missle

    I think you overestimate how large of an area you need to have to have a battle that you could "implement tactics that make sense from real life" The eastern front of WW2 was about 1500km wide and had over 10 million troops on it in 1943. The USSR had produced over 50,000 tanks by 1943. The density of tanks per linear kilometer was probably close to something like 40 tanks/kilometer. Troop number is over 7000/kilometer. Squad maps are at their longest, 4km wide, and will have maybe 100 players in the map, with 8 tanks at most. That's 25 troops/km, and 2 tanks/km. Squad maps do not need to be bigger for "real tactics to apply" my friend. Plenty of conflicts have had much more dense, and less dense distributions of assets. The TOW missile being a 1 hit kill and having a long range. Don't send your most expensive assets first into battle. Scout ahead, the enemy has to labour extensively to make ATGM emplacements and theyre extremely easy to knock out. If they're overpowered, the developers can just limit the number of them allowed in the map at once/make them more expensive.
  25. Kamdesh map and map UI in general

    a Territory Control layer is actually in A11 but apparently isnt working Yeah im hoping AAS gets replaced by TC soon.
×