Jump to content
liamNL

Squad system/types for vehicles.

Recommended Posts

So with A12 coming along and the introduction of fireteams coming as well. As well as major assets such as MBTs, I think it should be time to discuss how vehicles should be fitting in to a team.

  • Should we go full PR style and just have one squad that claims all vehicles through server rules (or possible ingame implementation)?
  • Or should we have vehicles like IFVs and APCs be attached to squads to form mechanized units?
  • Should there be an option in the squad creation to make a squad dedicated specifically to assets?
  • Should assets be in their own little squads and linked to whatever vehicles it's attached to and is available? (I prefer this idea as it would allow people to play together in the same tank without one squadleader technically owning all the tanks and being a **** and kicking all the people he don't like).
  • Should IFVs and APCs be able to attach themselves to infantry squads for proper coordination? (assuming a vehicle has its own little squad assigned to it as mentioned above).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I generally prefer the current unrestricted method that allows players to dynamically create squads that can change in response to the match.

 

However, I do like your third suggestion of optionally creating a dedicated squad. The way I imagine something like this working would be 3 or 4 squad types:

- Default (No restriction)

- Infantry (No crewman kits)

- Vehicles (Only crewman kits)

 

and when they come out

 

- Air (Only Pilot kits)

 

Edited by Stom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's always a numbers game. Players in fighting vehicles should always be first and foremost considered as bodies that aren't inside either the defend or attack zone. As such, logically those crews should be autonomous just for the sheer fact that they are typically best utilized in a standoff position a considerable distance from the points. In accordance this makes them useless to lead dismounts on the points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Stom said:

I generally prefer the current unrestricted method that allows players to dynamically create squads that can change in response to the match.

 

However, I do like your third suggestion of optionally creating a dedicated squad. The way I imagine something like this working would be 3 or 4 squad types:

- Default (No restriction)

- Infantry (No crewman kits)

- Vehicles (Only crewman kits)

 

and when they come out

 

- Air (Only Pilot kits)

 

I like the idea of kit restrictions, would also help squadleaders deal with the wannabe snipers taking marksman every round instead of just kicking them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to see a dedicated mechanized squad.

 

To use an example from Sweden back in 2000-2001:

1 CV90 + 6 man squad.

 

1 coaxial 7.62 MG and a 40mm automatic cannon.

 

CO and XO both carry scoped AK5 and an AT4 ( marksmen and anti-tank ).

2 FN MAG machineguns.

The last two riflemen are gunner and loader in an AT-team using the Carl Gustav recoilles anti-tank rifle.

 

That is ALOT of firepower for a 9 man unit ( 3 crew and 6 soldiers ). Basically one 40mm cannon, three 7.62 machineguns, two marksmen, two AT4's and one Carl Gustav.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Introducing specific squad types would only serve to reduce the gameplay variety and inevitably lead to repetitive gameplay as all teams end up with the same squad types and loadouts. The current implementation already allows for any kind of specialized squad, so placing limitations will just restrict the meta-game with absolutely no gain. As a side note, the PR "solution" is only an effect of the hardcoded 9-squad limit that does not exist in Squad.

 

What is actually needed is more organizational tools for squad leaders to customize their squads. That means:

 

* Being able to set your squad size. Instead of the current 9-man squad with squad locking, you simply set the size of your squad to whatever is needed. I usually run 4-man squads, and having to kick players at the start when a bunch of players join at once and then occasionally unlocking/locking again as players leave is just a time-wasting chore.

 

* Being able to set specific kits to available slots. Specialized squads generally require very specific kits, and having to verbally assign these and then inevitably having to repeat that over and over as people leave and join the squad at the start of the game and throughout the match is more time-wasting. Instead, squad leaders should be able to make a squad, set the size, and then assign kits to the slots. That way, there's no need to verbally assign the kits and players can see exactly what the squads are about before joining. This would resolve a lot of issues at the start of the game.

 

This would allow players to accomplish exactly what you guys are looking for without adding any restrictions to the game.

 

I already made a suggestion about this back in the ancient times of 2014 that would resolve all these issues, as well as provide tons of additional functionality, the Integrated Squad and Kit Loadout Restriction System:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather keep it to a dedicated asset squad that is linked to the vehicles (as in kit restrictions apply when vehicle is available) rather than specifying how the entire squad should load out. Or even having the whole customisation stuff you added in your post that I mostly don't approve of. We're playing as the grunts in an army (unless on the irregular forces) and the equipment should reflect that. I do approve through of locking a certain kit type so people don't meme and go for marksman.

 

And having a dedicated squad to an asset alone shouldnt bog down the gameplay. You don't have to have a squad type for every role on the battlefield. Just something to manage the assets more effectively. I don't see how having a specialized vehicle squad or even more specialized squad types would bog down gameplay and make it repetitive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@liamNL I didn't say it would bog down gameplay. I said it would reduce variety and replayability.

 

Having dedicated squads is not a negative thing. But that is completely possible with the current implementation. Having squad compositions dictated by the game is bad. You can just look at the effect of the current kit restriction system in Squad right now. There's not a lot of variety in how squads are composed and organized right now because the kit restriction system means there's only a few optimal loadouts at any given squad size. And the same will be true for dictating squad compositions. You end up with every team playing with identical squads across the board. There's no room for the meta-game to evolve, matches become repetitive, and replayability drops, resulting in a player base drop. In addition, it just adds another layer of complications that increases the learning curve, which is what you want to avoid. Game mechanics must have an underlying logic that does not change from system to system.

 

Right now, you can call your squad BTR 30mm, lock it at two people, and there's your dedicated squad. What exactly do you think it will add if you implement dictated squad compositions?

 

It seems people think that if you just add different squad types to the game, things are magically going to change. But they're not.

 

Let's not follow Post Scriptum into oblivion. Instead, we need to focus on emergent game mechanics that allow for complex organization, not fixed solutions that only allow for one layer of complexity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Tartantyco said:

@liamNL I didn't say it would bog down gameplay. I said it would reduce variety and replayability.

 

Having dedicated squads is not a negative thing. But that is completely possible with the current implementation. Having squad compositions dictated by the game is bad. You can just look at the effect of the current kit restriction system in Squad right now. There's not a lot of variety in how squads are composed and organized right now because the kit restriction system means there's only a few optimal loadouts at any given squad size. And the same will be true for dictating squad compositions. You end up with every team playing with identical squads across the board. There's no room for the meta-game to evolve, matches become repetitive, and replayability drops, resulting in a player base drop. In addition, it just adds another layer of complications that increases the learning curve, which is what you want to avoid. Game mechanics must have an underlying logic that does not change from system to system.

 

Right now, you can call your squad BTR 30mm, lock it at two people, and there's your dedicated squad. What exactly do you think it will add if you implement dictated squad compositions?

I'm confused. Are you advocating that the SL should be able to choose the composition of roles and size of his/her squad unfettered by the game; ergo basically unrestricted kits because in another thread your narrative was the opposite?

 

"Behavior emerges from game mechanics. We could easily test this by removing squads, kit restrictions, vehicle restrictions, putting fixed spawns across the map, and so on. Are you willing to claim that behavior would not change if you changed any of these? Do you think you'd see many medics if everyone could be snipers or grenadiers or machine gunners?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Zylfrax791 said:

I'm confused. Are you advocating that the SL should be able to choose the composition of roles and size of his/her squad unfettered by the game;

No.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are advocating no restrictions but have the squadleaders' choice what needs to be in the squad, via a template system... Also your claims that the game dies because the meta cant change due to hard kit and or asset squad restrictions to me seems groundless. We don't know how it would change the community yet, and a game without these restrictions just becomes a sandbox shooter. And for all we know the community will not respond well to the implementation of helicopters and tanks and will fight amongst themselves over which squad could claim the asset as which was first and that kind of bullshit that happens in PR. I know I'm not the only one that thinks that some restrictions make for better gameplay. The only changing meta without kit restrictions would mostly bog down to what weapon is best (for asymmetrical factions at least) and everybody suddenly coming up to you with a g3 instead of the actual variety such a faction needs. Additionally we are playing a conventional army, which is going to have certain roles represented at all times, for example medics are always needed. Yet you question it when we need the same loadout of AT, AR, marksmen etc. This in itself does not hurt the game at all, it just brings it further in that everybody is basically equal and only differs in skill, leading ability, tactics, timing and teamwork.

 

Additionally responding with "No" and just linking an entire thread is not a way to argue at all. It does not fuel the discussion as you are just telling someone to look it up within these 103 replies what you want to mention. And at the moment just seems like blatant advertisement to push your idea ahead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, liamNL said:

Additionally responding with "No" and just linking an entire thread is not a way to argue at all. It does not fuel the discussion as you are just telling someone to look it up within these 103 replies what you want to mention. And at the moment just seems like blatant advertisement to push your idea ahead.

You're the one who asked. I gave you an answer. And you manage to get upset about that.

 

Aaaaaaaaaaaand it's literally the OP, so you don't have to search at all.

 

You may not know a lot of things, liamNL, but I do. You may feel like you're stumbling around in the darkness of ignorance, but I think the rest of us have experience, data, and understanding to lean on in terms of determining the outcomes of various changes. Yes, a slight possibility exists that the introduction of helicopters to the game will cause a mutation in the DNA of the Squad player base that turns them into packs of ravaging werebeasts who must consume human flesh to survive. However, I feel confident in predicting that this will not, in fact, be the case. I am equally confident that the player base will not suddenly devolve into screaming man-children with the introduction of tanks and helicopters.

 

This seems to be becoming a trend for people who are failing to argue their cases properly, simply claiming that "we literally know nothing at all about anything. A meteor may crash into the earth tomorrow, so is there even any point in continuing the development of the game?" It really is a waste of everyone's time, and I would prefer that you actually argue the merits of arguments and ideas instead of simply claiming that because you don't know something, no one else can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh now you're just being a ****. Personal insults have no place in a discussion. Should we also now all bow before you enter the bloody room? Goddamn entitlement.

 

If you claim to have data to support your suggestions of a kitless structure that somehow the squadleader is still able to lock in to certain roles. Without having it tested or a workable system then please enlighten me because there seems to be absolutely none provided. If you have a claim supposedly supported by date then please share it, otherwise your claim is unsubstantiated and just speculation. I am also not claiming that the introduction of an asset will inevitably change everybody to become raging lunatics, I am only stating that people might react differently to new variables on the battlefield and how they will integrate, in PR you see the whole mess about who gets the asset squad first and the rage that ensues.

 

It may be the OP in the thread you linked but you don't specify that you only add "No", to a question I didn't ask you. You seem to have a hard time distinguishing different people. And your assumptions about people and their supposed ignorance makes you look like an asshole. Not saying that you are one, just that you are conveying yourself to be one. But seriously a discussion is no place for a "Holier than thou" mindset that you seem to be bringing. I might not be the best example of anything decent, but you aren't setting a good example at all.

Edited by liamNL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, liamNL said:

Personal insults have no place in a discussion.

I didn't use any personal insults. You're the one who claimed ignorance. Now, do you have anything relevant to the actual discussion to add?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it could be solved by allowing experienced SL's the option to choose his type of squad? Say if a player collects a certain amount of gametime as SL then he/she is allowed other options?

 

Standard infantry, Air Cav, Mechanized perhaps, and each type has a different kit loadout? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ScruffySwede

Why lock it behind experience? What makes a guy who played 200 hours better than a guy who played 20 hours? Sure there is the experience factor but a guy who played 200 hours could still be a shit leader. Making arbitrary unlocks like that just forces people in to roles they might not be suited for. I could be an excellent squadleader but be a horrible vehicle leader. Meanwhile a guy who can't lead a normal squad to save his life but is amazing with vehicle squads would be locked out of it. In my opinion the only gateway to anything in this game is skill.

 

You want to use a tank? Sure if you know how to use it. You want to fly a chopper? If you know how to fly sure.

 

@Tartantyco

You're not adding anything to the discussion either with your last 2 comments. Additionally I didn't claim ignorance I claimed that such responses can't be predicted. You however started the claim that I was ignorant about it which is a personnel insult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6I agree Liam. I totally do. But at the same time it would be cool to see different types of squads with different loadouts.

 

Like mentioned earlier, it would be cool to have a 6 man unit with scoped rifles and 2 AT4s and 2 GPMGs. Maybe replace the AT4s with LATs. But the point being if you spot an IFV, you know it carries a squad that means business.

 

Like I said; it would be cool. But if you can make a fun and fair system to make it work, I dont know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am personally in favour of different types of Squads, i know a bunch of players who do not mind just running logistics for the team, or transports. But right now it's simply not needed yet, V12 will at least fix the need for supply lines, which is a really good step into the right direction imo.

 

Anyways, all suggestions, no matter what side you're on in this discussion, is all speculation and needs to be tested ingame. The devs will do what they feel like is right, and stuff can always change again, which is the cool thing about being able to play in the alpha stage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@liamNL So here's the thing right...I think it all boils down to the VoIP system being the limiting factor. There's currently only 4 channels of communication:

 

Local

Squad

Command

Whisper 

 

This makes it hard for a dedicated squad of say 3x BTR's to dynamically shift each vehicle's responsibility over the course of a match. Unless the wolfpack SL (why they call it wolfpack...) is able to quickly relay information from a stranded SL and his squad to the closest BTR to give them orders to pick up the stranded squad. Also before you say - "Use team chat" - know that I find that extremely immersion-breaking and hate it. That may be because I come from an ARMA realism unit. Team chat can sometimes not be effective because in public matches you have people spamming BS on it. 

 

Now if squad implemented a TFAR style frequencies that has a standardized chart, I think that's when we'll start seeing more variety in dedicated squads and more autonomy from the individual BTR's which is what would allow them to communicate directly with the squad that needs their help. You would also need call signs for that to work so:

 

BTR 1-1

BTR 1-2

BTR 1-3

 

Instead of having to memorize a new player's name every single game.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can already do all this stuff, guys. Dedicated squads are already a thing, guys. Individual assets communicating with individual squads is already a thing, guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@CptDirty

I'd rather keep the too milsim aspects out of the game such as putting different radio frequencies. You could however make it so squad to squad radio would allow double tapped inputs for example tapping 1, 1 in quick succession and holding the last digit would connect you to squad 11. Or 1, 2 whilst holding 2 would connect to 12. This could help with communication without being too much of a hassle to quickly do. The problem I see would still be memorizing all squads and stuff.

 

@Tartantyco

Still not adding anything to the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Tartantyco said:

No.

 

 

Interesting. Because here's a quote from you quite some time ago where you do advocate for no restrictions:

 

"The solution is obviously to just remove all of those restrictions. All you need to place a FOB: Be a Squad Leader. All you need to take a logi truck: Be a Squad Leader. And give the Squad Leader a shovel. You're making the game easier to understand and you're making a lot of roles and functionalities viable."

 

In contrast you seem to contradict yourself with this post where you make the inference that freedom of choice with no restrictions would create squads consisting of nothing but snipers, grenadiers and machine gunners:

 

"Behavior emerges from game mechanics. We could easily test this by removing squads, kit restrictions, vehicle restrictions, putting fixed spawns across the map, and so on. Are you willing to claim that behavior would not change if you changed any of these? Do you think you'd see many medics if everyone could be snipers or grenadiers or machine gunners?"

 

This leaves me and others really confused. Please without again posting links to your elaborate systems you've devised how about describing your opinion in a simplistic manner with some clarity, continuity and consistency?

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, liamNL said:

I'd rather keep the too milsim aspects out of the game such as putting different radio frequencies. You could however make it so squad to squad radio would allow double tapped inputs for example tapping 1, 1 in quick succession and holding the last digit would connect you to squad 11. Or 1, 2 whilst holding 2 would connect to 12. This could help with communication without being too much of a hassle to quickly do. The problem I see would still be memorizing all squads and stuff.

Unsure if the double-tapping thing would work. I get what you're saying but I'm still convinced that a simplified version of TFAR could be implemented with a standardized frequency chart between all factions so it's more easily embedded in players mind regardless of what faction they play during a course of several rounds. For the record, I'm not saying share the RF waves for both factions fighting on the same map, not at all.

 

What I am saying is that in order to give mechanized squads (and other dedicated squads) more freedom and autonomy to perform a multitude of tasks, it's necessary to give them the appropriate flexibility with radio communications. Is the implementation of Fire Teams also comes with separate channels for FTL's? I'm asking because I can't recall. 

 

Regardless, it all boils down to user experience and how the game designers (SgtRoss, Fuzzhead and others) want it all to come together. So far we've only had 4 channels with a strong emphasis on SL-to-SL communications but unfortunately that's the furthest the system got in terms of depth which as far as I'm concerned also is as far as we'll get with micromanagement. This could very well be a game design decision, maybe we'll see an overhaul of the VoIP, maybe not who knows. 

17 minutes ago, Zylfrax791 said:

This leaves me and others really confused.

man-raising-hand-medium-light-skin-tone.

Me too! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Zylfrax791 The confusion stems from you misreading my statements to believe that I am arguing for or against restrictions or freedom of choice. That is a contradiction that does not exist.

 

What I am for is good game mechanics. What I am against is bad game mechanics.

 

Take the first quote from me. I'm not saying "remove all restrictions and everything will be great". I am speaking about very specific restrictions that are having a negative effect on gameplay. I am not advocating the removal of all restrictions, as is quite evident from the quote itself. You still need to be a Squad Leader.

 

It's quite simple: If you need three people next to you to place a FOB, then you need to have two people with you when you're driving around setting up FOBs. That means those two people have to sit around in a truck for 90% of the game, and spend the other 10% shoveling emplacements. That's what we call bad game design, and that's why I'm in favor of removing those specific restrictions. It does not mean I am in favor of removing all restrictions.

 

The second quote does not say that removing kit restrictions would create nothing but squads full of snipers, grenadiers, and machine gunners. Furthermore, it is a general statement about how changes to game mechanics alter player behavior, which is not contradictory to my first quote.

 

As I have already said, everything you guys are asking for in this thread already exists and is practiced in the game. You already see in-game Mortar squads, TOW squads, IFV squads, APC squads, Mech. Inf squads, different kinds of Infantry squads. All of this without any of the stuff you're all talking about wanting to see in the game. So ask yourselves: What is it exactly you're trying to achieve with your suggestions here that isn't already possible in-game?

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

×