Jump to content
YuriIsLoveYuriIsLife

Is it possible to instill the mentality of IFV's for IFV exclusive squads?

Recommended Posts

Even after the crewman role being added, regular infantry squads are still grabbing heavy vehicles like the Bradley. Is there any possible way to stop this mentality?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope and thats a horrible idea. Normal squads are suppose to have heavy vehicles to. Crewman isnt suppose to help BTR or APC squads but to have more specialization. And honestly vehicle exclusive squad kinda suck because in a regular squad communication is easier and you can move with the infantry easily. There is 0 problem with 9/9 squads taking heavy vehicles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For IFVs and APCs it makes sense to be attached to an infantry squad, but when even heavier assets are added there should be a distinction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, liamNL said:

For IFVs and APCs it makes sense to be attached to an infantry squad, but when even heavier assets are added there should be a distinction.

Even with ifv the purpose is to destroy enemy armor, so it is best if they have their own squad so that can be the focus of communication, not infantry support and gameplay 

4 hours ago, OVKHuman said:

Nope and thats a horrible idea. Normal squads are suppose to have heavy vehicles to. Crewman isnt suppose to help BTR or APC squads but to have more specialization. And honestly vehicle exclusive squad kinda suck because in a regular squad communication is easier and you can move with the infantry easily. There is 0 problem with 9/9 squads taking heavy vehicles

For apc and at the very least ifv, a big part of the mission is to deal with enemy armor, and being in an infantry squad makes that communication bogged down and inefficient. And when communication with infantry needs to happen, that’s what squadlead coms are for

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Engagedrook8 said:

Even with ifv the purpose is to destroy enemy armor, so it is best if they have their own squad so that can be the focus of communication, not infantry support and gameplay 

No it's not.  It's role as an Infantry Fighting Vehicle is to support the infantry.  If that means taking on armour so be it... but its role is to support infantry. (which can be done well within an infantry squad)

Edited by Tommy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Infantry Fighting Vehicle, it's purpose is to transport infantry safely and provide direct fire support for the infantry. It is not defined by it's capability of engaging enemy vehicles. Even through in Squad and PR it might be used more as an asset hunter it is not it's intended role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Tommy said:

No it's not.  It's role as an Infantry Fighting Vehicle is to support the infantry.  If that means taking on armour so be it... but its role is to support infantry.

Even so, being in an infantry squad with a lot of chatter can be confusing for crewmen and mean that the vehicles are not operated as they should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Engagedrook8 said:

Even so, being in an infantry squad with a lot of chatter can be confusing for crewmen and mean that the vehicles are not operated as they should be.

That's a different problem.  And not a problem that is hard to sort out.. certainly not one that incumbers me as a crewman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, liamNL said:

Infantry Fighting Vehicle, it's purpose is to transport infantry safely and provide direct fire support for the infantry. It is not defined by it's capability of engaging enemy vehicles. Even through in Squad and PR it might be used more as an asset hunter it is not it's intended role.

I do understand that it is for transportation and support, and even though they often act as vehicle hunters in video games, I misspoke, the idea I’m trying to get across is that a separate armor squad makes communication easier in that crewmen don’t have to differentiate between what applies to them and general squad chatter that happens in infantry squads

1 minute ago, Tommy said:

That's a different problem.  And not a problem that is hard to sort out.. certainly not one that incumbers me as a crewman.

Also has to do with how the squad is being run, most infantry squad in public games end up saying a lot of unnecessary things, and a dedicated armor

squad takes that difficulty out of the equation. Also it means that any armor will (in theory) do the most advantageous thing for the team not for that infantry squad that they would be attached to

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or y'know the devs could make a new system that allows the crew to communicate with other vehicles and infantry alike. And having all the assets in one squad just makes them hunt for high value targets instead of offering the actual support that might win the battle. And it also lengthens the response time, because first you need to contact the squad leader, he needs to acknowledge what you're saying and he then has to relay that info to the crewmembers in question. Which with targets like RPGs or BTRs might be a problem because the response time will suffer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, liamNL said:

For IFVs and APCs it makes sense to be attached to an infantry squad, but when even heavier assets are added there should be a distinction.

That's a good way to destroy combat effectiveness of IFV's working together and being called by squad leaders when needed. Let's say there are 2 different INF squads with 1 IFV each. A third squad is in desperate need of armor support. So squad 3 needs to radio squad leaders 1 and 2 and then they need to relay the information. And in my experience, that shit always gets confusing. The radio traffic gets unmanageable. When an IFV squad stands on it's own, any squad leader can radio information directly to the IFV squad leader and since standalone IFV squads usually have less radio chatter, it becomes much easier to transfer information without it getting mixed up with what a bunch of infantrymen are saying because in combat, those guys should be talking quite a bit.

2 hours ago, Tommy said:

No it's not.  It's role as an Infantry Fighting Vehicle is to support the infantry.  If that means taking on armour so be it... but its role is to support infantry. (which can be done well within an infantry squad)

To some extent or another, every military vehicle's purpose is to support infantry. So should regular squads have gunship pilots sitting in them too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I think the biggest problem with combined vehicle and infantry squads are that it's a lot for one SL to effectively manage both a heavy vehicle (APC/IFV) and 6 infantry. It's very convenient in the beginning when you need to leave base to get to an objective, that's when it saves everyone time instead of a full infantry squad waiting for a APC/IFV to come pick them up at main/a fob. 

 

Once you get to an objective though, it becomes a different story. The infantry will dismount and move onto the objective (which is always a structure or building of some kind that limits the movement of vehicles). This is when the SL gets out with the infantry and basically tells the two guys driving the APC/IFV to move off and support them at a distance. I know there may be cases where the SL is more involved with the whereabouts and orders of his vehicle, but most of the time the vehicle crew is on their own to a certain degree. The SL needs to worry more about supporting and guiding the infantry on to the point. 

 

This is the point where having an embedded vehicle crew becomes ineffective. 

 

The two crewman will communicate on local, worrying mainly about other vehicles and enemy infantry. They will inevitably have to listen to a lot of irrelevant infantry chatter on squad comms. They will not hear updates on the whereabouts of other enemy vehicles that other SL's will call out on the command channel, unless the SL relays it to them over comms. If another squad needs transport or is engaging another priority enemy vehicle, they will not know about it unless the SL relays it to them. 

 

Relaying the command channel over squad comms begins to fill it up with stuff that is only relevant to two guys in the squad. Also, this adds a delay to that info and a middleman that can potentially confuse things, especially when he's dealing with 6 other infantry needing orders, rally's and targets.

 

Either way, one SL is usually spread too thin and either the infantry is held back because the SL spends too much time on ordering the vehicle and relaying info to them OR the vehicle gets underused by the squad and team itself, and cannot communicate with other squads.

 

===================================================================================================================

 

This comes from my personal experience as both an SL and also as someone operating a vehicle in a combined infantry and heavy vehicle squad. I have had much more effective rounds as an infantry SL working with separate vehicle squads and as a vehicle squad separate, but working with, infantry. 

 

Combined infantry and vehicle squads can work, but it almost never works as effectively. As long as people are communicative on comms and mark targets on the map, it is far more effective for heavy vehicles to be in their own small squads. I personally think each IFV/APC should be a two man squad for them to be most effective. I would love to see mods where crewman have to be in their own squad, of no more than two people, a vehicle commander (Crewman SL) and another crewman. 

 

TL:DR: Vehicles are most effective and beneficial to the team if they are in a separate squad, but communicating to other SL's through marks and the command channel. The location, orders and priorities of vehicles are different from that of an infantry squad.

 

P.S. Apologies if this seems very rant-y or too long. Just wanted to explain my reasoning/experiences well. I probably missed something or didn't properly explain something. I look forward to having constructive discussion with you all about this topic.

Edited by Han
Removed 7 equal signs so the break properly fits the page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, OVKHuman said:

Nope and thats a horrible idea. Normal squads are suppose to have heavy vehicles to. Crewman isnt suppose to help BTR or APC squads but to have more specialization. And honestly vehicle exclusive squad kinda suck because in a regular squad communication is easier and you can move with the infantry easily. There is 0 problem with 9/9 squads taking heavy vehicles

I think the main reason crewman is twofold, so that you don't end up with important kits driving/gunning vehicles and acting almost as a contract with those who take the kit that they will dedicate to the use of that vehicle. It reduces heavy vehicle assets from being left places abandoned and prevents your medic or AT from being the driver/gunner. 

 

On another note, I think they should remove the primary from crewman, so that they only have a pistol, knife and bandage. If you are taking this kit, you are going to either go down with the the vehicle, or drop it off somewhere to change kits (either main or a FOB), which is an OK place for it to be left. It will be near a spawn so that someone else can get it and use it if you no longer want it.

7 hours ago, liamNL said:

For IFVs and APCs it makes sense to be attached to an infantry squad, but when even heavier assets are added there should be a distinction.

Right now, they are our heaviest assets and will pretty much fill their role until MBT's are added. So we should pretty much treat them as such, except for they have the additional ability to transport troops. This can be done more effectively as a separate squad, as it allows the vehicle to transport many different infantry squads, instead of just the one they are attached to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Engagedrook8 said:

Even with ifv the purpose is to destroy enemy armor, so it is best if they have their own squad so that can be the focus of communication, not infantry support and gameplay 

For apc and at the very least ifv, a big part of the mission is to deal with enemy armor, and being in an infantry squad makes that communication bogged down and inefficient. And when communication with infantry needs to happen, that’s what squadlead coms are for

I don't think it's their only purpose, but it is definitely their main priority once they get to an objective. They can do it way better than infantry and they cannot take objectives, so it is clear that it should be their main focus when there is another vehicle around. After a team has vehicle superiority on an objective, the vehicle squad can focus on taking out other enemy infantry in support of their teams infantry or transporting another squad somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tommy said:

No it's not.  It's role as an Infantry Fighting Vehicle is to support the infantry.  If that means taking on armour so be it... but its role is to support infantry. (which can be done well within an infantry squad)

Yes, their priority should be the support of infantry, as it is infantry that can take flag/destroy caches and win the game. However, to do this they mainly do three things for them (they are also organized by priority):

 

1. Eliminate enemy armor - They do this way better than infantry and allow the infantry to focus on enemy infantry, a battle they are well equipped for.

2. Transport infantry - If infantry cannot get to an objective, they cannot take it. Vehicles can allow infantry to move quickly and safely to objectives.

3. Eliminate enemy infantry - While they can do this better than infantry in some situations, friendly infantry should be able to do this on their own.

 

Vehicles can do task 3 better when their in an combined infantry and vehicle squad, but this is their last priority. In matches where forces with APC/IFV's are mostly engaging enemy infantry (usually conventional vs. insurgents), combined vehicle squads can work well. However, if it is a large map where the other team has heavy vehicles, they are better off being separate squads that work closely together, because they will spend most of their time doing tasks 1 & 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Engagedrook8 said:

I do understand that it is for transportation and support, and even though they often act as vehicle hunters in video games, I misspoke, the idea I’m trying to get across is that a separate armor squad makes communication easier in that crewmen don’t have to differentiate between what applies to them and general squad chatter that happens in infantry squads

Also has to do with how the squad is being run, most infantry squad in public games end up saying a lot of unnecessary things, and a dedicated armor

squad takes that difficulty out of the equation. Also it means that any armor will (in theory) do the most advantageous thing for the team not for that infantry squad that they would be attached to

I'd say the communication problems are less with crewman hearing too much from infantry and more of not hearing other SL's that could use them more or be relaying relevant information to them. SL's have to relay them all this info over squad comms on top of all the orders and communications that is already happening, which does get confusing and adds an unnecessary layer of confusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I've seen an infantry squad grab an IFV yet. What servers/times are you playing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, YuriIsLoveYuriIsLife said:

Even after the crewman role being added, regular infantry squads are still grabbing heavy vehicles like the Bradley. Is there any possible way to stop this mentality?

Making the Bradley hold 9 passengers instead of 7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Engagedrook8 said:

I do understand that it is for transportation and support, and even though they often act as vehicle hunters in video games, I misspoke, the idea I’m trying to get across is that a separate armor squad makes communication easier in that crewmen don’t have to differentiate between what applies to them and general squad chatter that happens in infantry squads

Also has to do with how the squad is being run, most infantry squad in public games end up saying a lot of unnecessary things, and a dedicated armor

squad takes that difficulty out of the equation. Also it means that any armor will (in theory) do the most advantageous thing for the team not for that infantry squad that they would be attached to

And its SOOOO distracting? With a separate vehicle squad for someone to call out a enemy vehicle via VOIP (as the vehicle might not even see your marker) compared to just using squad voip once you have to use squad to SL then SL to SL then SL to squad. Many messages are lost in combat. Hell even squad to squad gets lost sometimes, and remember VOIP has delay and incombat with 3 VOIP cluttering SLs its hard for them to transfer the message thats simply about calling a contact

 

Now, you said that people say unessasary things. Like what? Callling out contact? Hmmm you should be near infantry cover so that relevant somewhat. Jokes? Well if you want some fun you are going to joke in your vic squad and they are usually not brough up in middle of a fire fight

 

Now the fundamental problem with vic squad is that they cant do shit. You walk into a server with kohat, wups theres a 4 man locked squad for vics wup another one for TOW FOB...and wups now you have a 3/9 infantry squad. 

 

RIP servers do not allow locked squads for this reason. And there isnt any chaos because of this either dont see the point

5 minutes ago, Rybec said:

Making the Bradley hold 9 passengers instead of 7.

Still holds 9 people aka full squad tho driver gunner 7 passanger

1 hour ago, Peerun said:

I don't think I've seen an infantry squad grab an IFV yet. What servers/times are you playing?

That is EXTREMELY surprising, these vic are suppose to be IFVs not tanks damnit

 

Maybe he plays on RIP, RIP prevent locked squad and i love it

Edited by OVKHuman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Han said:

I'd say the communication problems are less with crewman hearing too much from infantry and more of not hearing other SL's that could use them more or be relaying relevant information to them. SL's have to relay them all this info over squad comms on top of all the orders and communications that is already happening, which does get confusing and adds an unnecessary layer of confusion.

Exactly what i want to say. Probably easier to read than my post xD

6 hours ago, Han said:

Yes, their priority should be the support of infantry, as it is infantry that can take flag/destroy caches and win the game. However, to do this they mainly do three things for them (they are also organized by priority):

 

1. Eliminate enemy armor - They do this way better than infantry and allow the infantry to focus on enemy infantry, a battle they are well equipped for.

2. Transport infantry - If infantry cannot get to an objective, they cannot take it. Vehicles can allow infantry to move quickly and safely to objectives.

3. Eliminate enemy infantry - While they can do this better than infantry in some situations, friendly infantry should be able to do this on their own.

 

Vehicles can do task 3 better when their in an combined infantry and vehicle squad, but this is their last priority. In matches where forces with APC/IFV's are mostly engaging enemy infantry (usually conventional vs. insurgents), combined vehicle squads can work well. However, if it is a large map where the other team has heavy vehicles, they are better off being separate squads that work closely together, because they will spend most of their time doing tasks 1 & 2.

I rarely EVER see ANY IFV or APC actively transport people, task #1 can be easier by having direct access to your infantry and short comm delay and relay for info from other squads, there really isnt any reason a 9/9 squad IFV is handicapped except for being closer to your squad (lets exclude kohat) which is good sometimes because of infantry cover and most time SLs will allow you to free roam anyways

Edited by OVKHuman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Infact with a 9/9 squad its actually better because they know exactly when and where they would need a vic asset. There is a thing called mechanised armies

Share this post


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

Exactly what i want to say. Probably easier to read than my post xD

I rarely EVER see ANY IFV or APC actively transport people, task #1 can be easier by having direct access to your infantry and short comm delay and relay for info from other squads, there really isnt any reason a 9/9 squad IFV is handicapped except for being closer to your squad (lets exclude kohat) which is good sometimes because of infantry cover and most time SLs will allow you to free roam anyways

The first part of what I wrote that you quoted was actually a point FOR vehicle squads. I mean communications for vehicles is that they cannot hear other SL's. It is easier for an APC/IFV to be their own driver gunner pair, with one being a SL, usually the driver. This allows them to communicate and work with all squads instead of just one.

 

I agree, the APC/IFV current squads do not do a good job at making themselves available as transport. When I SL as a vehicle squad, I immediately ask other squads if they want transport to an objective. Once we get there, I work closely with them to engage the enemy armor, then infantry on the objective. Then they load back in and we move on to the next objective. The benefit of us being in our own squad is that we can communicate with all squads and hear the call outs for other enemy vehicles. I usually ask the other SL's to do this at the beginning of the round. The success of vehicle squads is pretty dependent on how communicative SL's are on the command channel.

 

It is not easier to take out enemy armor with comms to the infantry and it is not best for vehicles to be where infantry should. Infantry should be inside the cap, fighting in buildings. APC/IFV's should be off the cap, shooting onto it taking advantage of their range. APC/IFV's are very unsafe in cap zones that are contested, as enemy AT can maneuver around them with lots of hard cover to easily overwhelm and destroy them. When vehicles are engaging other enemy vehicles, the most useful thing an infantry squad can do is have the SL mark the location of the enemy vehicle. Infantry AT can do it's job without communicating to APC/IFV and the SL is really the only one they need to talk to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, OVKHuman said:

Infact with a 9/9 squad its actually better because they know exactly when and where they would need a vic asset. There is a thing called mechanised armies

The way you say that makes it seem like you understand there are sometimes an infantry squad does and does not need a vehicle asset. But if they want one and do not intend on just ditching it when they are done with it (as usually happens), there will come a time that they no longer need it, so they have to take it somewhere it is not useful and potentially is a burden, likely to be destroyed at that point. 

 

This is why I believe a dedicated vehicle squad is better, because they can talk with other SL's to help them when they need it. Once the SL no longer needs them, they can easily communicate with another squad to go help them. 

Share this post


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

Still holds 9 people aka full squad tho driver gunner 7 passanger

You took my entire post out of context.

He asked what would need to be done to make people at least okay with APC squads. Bradley is useless if it's not integrated with a squad because it can't take everyone in one go.

 

I prefer mechanized and motorized squads. It rarely works out but the game needs less cross country walking and more use of assets. I understand that if you take two squads and pit them against each other one squad loses. You then have a truck sitting there that will never get used and you will soon have a map filled with trucks if everyone brings their own vehicles.

 

All the losers that make APC squads never use them for transport. They may as well not seat anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apcs are apcs  and IFVS are IFVs . 100% agree with this topic. Inf in real life is never mixed with apcs unless it's mechanised inf but most of the inf isn't grabbing heavy vehicles in one squad.

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

×