Jump to content

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, IRONXBAY said:

Here's a handy diagram I put together from back during the Closed Pre Alpha..

 

Vq7XfBU.png

 

 

If you ever play Project Reality, (the spiritual ancestor to Squad), you will find this is exactly what occurs on a regular basis. Specialized squads form that help one another accomplish objectives and secure victory.


I'd put PR closer to Arma than squad.  the squad organization and communication there was crazy organized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really didn't want this thread to discuss the "grade of realism" of Squad, but personally i dont think that arma is a better milsim than squad, because it tries too hard and gets slow and overcomplicated, whereas squad brings a very realistic feeling of shooting, combat and tactical needs.

I have not played Project Reality, i just have heard about it and i know this game wants to be its spiritual successor. That on the other hand does not necessarily mean that it will be exactly the same in every aspect.

 

I know there are other threads, but for the MilEng branch for example the newest one i have found was older than a year, and a lot seems to have changed since then. So i wrote this one here and added some other ideas that i have come to as a soldier and a fan of Squad, which i became in the last days and weeks.

I think the game has the exact grade of realism (and map size) to make combat engineering a very useful and fun component in combined arms combat, for combat bridges as well as for demolition, blocking, base building and mining.

 

Drone usage is common among every modern army as far as i know, and i know it for sure for the German army: The german recon troops use at least 3 different kinds of recon drones as well as different radar technologies and scouting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Karl Martell said:

Drone usage is common among every modern army as far as i know, and i know it for sure for the German army: The german recon troops use at least 3 different kinds of recon drones as well as different radar technologies and scouting.

It's not only common, UAVs is an essential asset for any modern military forces around the world. Problem is how to implement such things to a game ? You just need to find the sweet spot between realism and gameplay in such way that one won't hurt or compel the other and instead it will only adds to the whole experience IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Karl Martell said:

~ regarding military engineers and other special roles

While I agree having more combat and non-combat roles would be fun, you always need to keep the limitations on your mind. Right now we don't even have 100-player servers, but that should come to be eventually. Now we divide this server into two teams, that's 50 players each. These 50 players may now be divided into specialised squads, so let's see.

  • 1-3 players running a transport squad, maybe even 4 in the extreme, I can't imagine needing to have more
  • Combat vehicles like tanks or APC will require at least 2 operators each, so let's say we have 2 APCs and 2 tanks (maybe a bit more as the maps get large enough), that means 8-10 players operating these assets
  • Close air support asset would take at least 2 players, an assault helicopter needs pilot and a gunner, or 2 1-man jets (I just don't think having only one jet per each side would make sense), I can even remember some 2 man bombers from PR, but let's forget about those for now
  • Let's say 4 players doing mortars, you probably won't need more
  • 1 commander
  • I'm sure I'm forgetting something here, but I'm not sure what, so let's just reserve 3 people doing whatever (probably trying to be that super important sniper team we all need, right, folks? ;))

That comes down to about 20 or even more players out of a 50 player team already operating various assets and having specialised roles, that's a huge chunk of that team, and we still need infantry. Now, once you start adding more specialised roles, you need to find people somewhere to fill them, thus decreasing the amount of infantry on the field. I can see some maps in the future becoming mainly focused on armored combat, but for me (and I'm sure I'm not alone in this) having a few valuable combat assets and having the bulk of the team made up of infantry is just the right mix for this scale of gameplay, or at least until we can make servers with more than 100 people happen (devs pls?). I really don't want to see one infantry squad per team running around capping flags while everybody else battles it out in armored vehicles.

 

So before you think of adding more and more specialised roles, you need to think about how many people of thath 50-player team you can actually spare to fill them, and even right now we don't have much to spare.

Edited by MultiSquid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, MultiSquid said:

While I agree having more combat and non-combat roles would be fun, you always need to keep the limitations on your mind. Right now we don't even have 100-player servers, but that should come to be eventually. Now we divide this server into two teams, that's 50 players each. These 50 players may now be divided into specialised squads, so let's see.

  • 1-3 players running a transport squad, maybe even 4 in the extreme, I can't imagine needing to have more
  • Combat vehicles like tanks or APC will require at least 2 operators each, so let's say we have 2 APCs and 2 tanks (maybe a bit more as the maps get large enough), that means 8-10 players operating these assets
  • Close air support asset would take at least 2 players, an assault helicopter needs pilot and a gunner, or 2 1-man jets (I just don't think having only one jet per each side would make sense), I can even remember some 2 man bombers from PR, but let's forget about those for now
  • Let's say 4 players doing mortars, you probably won't need more
  • 1 commander
  • I'm sure I'm forgetting something here, but I'm not sure what, so let's just reserve 3 people doing whatever (probably trying to be that super important sniper team we all need, right, folks? ;))

That comes down to about 20 or even more players out of a 50 player team already operating various assets and having specialised roles, that's a huge chunk of that team, and we still need infantry. Now, once you start adding more specialised roles, you need to find people somewhere to fill them, thus decreasing the amount of infantry on the field. I can see some maps in the future becoming mainly focused on armored combat, but for me (and I'm sure I'm not alone in this) having a few valuable combat assets and having the bulk of the team made up of infantry is just the right mix for this scale of gameplay, or at least until we can make servers with more than 100 people happen (devs pls?). 

 

So before you think of adding more and more specialised roles, you need to think about how many people of thath 50-player team you can actually spare to fill them, and even right now we don't have much to spare.

I would say half the numbers of what you mention is about right, and forget the jets!

Something like-
2 transport vehicles (2 people)
2 armoured vehicles (4 people)
1 heli (2 people)
1 mortar team (2 people)
1 sniper team (2 people) (but reduce sniper/marsmen role in normal squad significantly)

1 commander

Thats still 13 out of 50.

 

note- give the transport drivers and the assistants in armoured and heli the ability to basic repair their vehicle, no need for dedicated mechanics.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Shoshin said:

I would say half the numbers of what you mention is about right, and forget the jets!
 

There is some spread, some give and take, but I don't think 10 players would be enough for all the combat assets in a 100-player server, unless you want only 1 of each type of vehicle per team. And let's not forget these players should be dedicated to their roles, you don't just drive a tank into the fray to get destroyed and jump out, it's not unusual to see people driving the same vehicle at the end of a 1 hour long  PR match, because they were able to keep it alive the whole time.

 

Just recently we had an episode with my clanmates when we were playing as an infantry squad in PR and one of our APCs drove over a bridge to a small island to support us, but the insurgents decided to blow up the only bridge leading back to safety behind us. We spent the rest of the round trying to save the APC by rebuilding the destroyed parts of the bridge instead of just abandoning it to get blown up. Even though we might have wasted a bit too much time on that, it just goes to show you the level of dedication players have to keep their vehicles up and running, because they are valuable assets.

 

Edited by MultiSquid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Karl Martell said:

I know there are other threads, but for the MilEng branch for example the newest one i have found was older than a year, and a lot seems to have changed since then. So i wrote this one here and added some other ideas that i have come to as a soldier and a fan of Squad, which i became in the last days and weeks.

I think the game has the exact grade of realism (and map size) to make combat engineering a very useful and fun component in combined arms combat, for combat bridges as well as for demolition, blocking, base building and mining.

 

The problem with squads dedicated to combat engineering is that 99 times out of 100 they'd be useless simply because the enemy decided to not blow up a crucial bridge or the fighting is somewhere else on the map. If we take your proposed 6 man squad that means 6 players are essentially doing nothing unless they participate in the fighting. But that begs the question why they aren't a simple infantry squad in the first place.

 

I hope the team, should they decide to include combat engineering, does not unlearn what they have learned from PR. All it takes in PR to get a simple CSB(Close Support Bridge) deployed is to drive a truck in the correct location. That's it. It's this simplicity that makes PR so appealing: The tactical options are all there and accounted for, it's up to the player to make use of them if needed. And stay away from them if they aren't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion there is no need to have every role in the game at any time. Fights can be focused on armor with many tanks or more on infantristic close combat and with that the amount of specialized roles can also vary.

Noone says that e.g. combat engineers cant fight (neither in real life nor in game), they have the same weapons as the infantry and often fight side by side with them - also depending on the nation that deploys them. For a game like Squad it would be more than ok to give them more combat-capabilities as in most armies, e.g. compare them with the "Sturmpioniere" the Wehrmacht used.

 

But a certain grade of specialization can require the whole team much more to communicate and coordinate and brings a more realistic feeling to a battle. I think you wouldnt even have to sacrifice a huge amount of simplicity.

Besides that, when PR is so perfect, then why should anyone want to make a copy of it? Technological possibilities have changed, player interests, too, so why not change a few things without destroying the basic idea of PR/Sqad?

 

This whole idea is more a thing to think about that one i want to have in the game as soon as possible, but nonetheless i think some specializations like reconaissance and demolition/mining/base building would be very cool and relatively easy to implement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2016 at 11:04 PM, Odin said:

@JAndreoli, just to address a few things here... @IRONXBAY's comments were on the nose as far as where we stand in relation to Milsim vs. Casual shooter. He isn't really shutting anything down. But to be totally frank, you have to understand where our moderators are coming from. There are literally 100 different posts (probably more) that are suggesting exactly what the OP is suggesting here. More specialized roles. Many of which have been discussed in depth with posts both here and on reddit, as well as interviews that have been done by the other developers like Irontaxi and Merlin. And as @invisible.nin/SINE said, we are very thankful for any feedback we get. The moderators handle a lot of questions that have been juggled multiple times, and then we try to step in and answer others as we can. We are all very busy, but there is no reason to be upset or anything. I think we are all wanting this game to grow and prosper. 

Also, on a totally other note, while there are some other official roles coming down the pipeline soon, there will also be many more added via the community modders. The SDK will enable the community to develop all sorts of things that could change the game drastically.

I feel ya man.  Just thought we wanted to grow the community and keep it going.  One thing I will say, is if we have to deal with all the newbies in game since the sale, you all get to deal with them here on the forums too, and they will likely make suggestions and comments that have already been discussed as naseum.  But we do want to keep things positive and not just shut them down, or make them feel as if we don't care about there feedback.  Thats my only point here.  Welcome and friendly.  Sugar gets more than salt.  Not saying this was salty, but I do think rather cold, and couldve been more friendly, especially since all these new people are around now since the steam sale.  But thats just my opinion.  Y'all gonna run it how you run it.  

 

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/12/2016 at 0:09 PM, MDInteractive said:

remote control drones to fly around the enemies heads? yes pls :) 

Rainbow Six: Siege vibesxD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely waiting on the USMC branch. As a Marine who plays this game avidly, and having met many active and former Marines who play squad, I think it would be an appropriate addition.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×