Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
J-DubzTac

"Simulation" Game types: Escort the VIP, Hunt, Takedown, and Hearts & Minds

Recommended Posts

Hear me out. I love SQUAD. The game types can be greatly improved.
First off in Post-Scriptum, there are "logi squads", where the crew looks different and uses different assets.
Insurgency mode~

Using this mechanic and USA an an example: A "Special Forces", "Delta", or " J-tac" squad can be there in the SQUAD selection list. This team has different gear (silenced SR-25, NVG, etc), but there are only 9 slots in that squad. Obviously everybody will try to join it at map start. Then there are 2 regular Army/Marine squads as per usual, and then an Afghan National Army left-over SQUADS with their sub-standard gear. So the Blufor team would have a massive mix of forces on the same map. It would really add alot to the depth of gameplay on the field. You'd have simulatenous SF Squad (looks delta as f*ck), US Ranger/army squads, and ANA Squads existing on same map and same team. 
On maps where the US has the SF team with NVG (low-light map only obviously), the player balance should be weighted so that USA team cap would be 18-24 players, and the insurgent team has +6 more players, like 24-30 player balance. The US has better gear, but the insurgents have more. I'm sure IR lasers and strobes will be implemented with flashlights etc in time.. I trust in the SQUAD development team. 

This same can be applied to the insurgent team. In an Insurgency type gamemode on an Al-Basrah type map, the Insurgents would have "Iraqi Royal Guard" or "Iranian/Turkish Defects" type squad with better gear (only 1 squad), Civilian squad (rocks, bandages, and drop intel when arrested much like Project Reality BF2), while the rest of the team uses the sub-standard insurgent gear. Obviously with the insurgent team it is a bit touchier with gear selection, but you get the point.


Hearts & Minds gamemode: This is a bit of a stretch, but is the real simulation type of game-mode. Obviously AI is possible within SQUAD, and adding ambient civilians to the battle zone would be AWESOME. They can throw rocks, give intel when arrested or questioned etc... It would be much like Insurgency game mode, when hunting for the cache's, but can potentially be a much lower server size, with an equally LARGE map size. SQUAD is amazing, but imo it lacks the "Simulation" type of scenarios. It turns into a massive meat grinder battle. This would be a slower-paced, randomly unfolding mission generator. With a player balance of say 12 Blufor, and 2 or 3 insurgent actual players, with the rest insurgent AI and ambint civilian AI. 

Objectives 1: Help protect the ANA Outpost: Drive your Humvee over to help defend it.

Objective 2: Locals revelaed IED locations - EOD squad goes to disarm a series of 3 or 4 IEDs, get caught up with firefights in the middle of it.
Objective 3: Deliver the supplies to the villagers..... I know it sounds like a stretch but dude, so possible!
Objective 4: Snatch and Grab: Delta flies in on an MH-6 to raid and capture the bad guys from a compound far off in the desert!

It may sound like a stretch from what I'm saying, but the implementation if done properly would be incredible, and set SQUAD apart from any other Mil-Sim game. It would do what ArmA3 did, but so much better with the SQUAD mechanics. 

It would be incredible to have preset missions, where the Blufor has to disarm IED's at certain locations, build something, and help defend the Afghani National Army  outpost or something. Randomly generated, has the smaller-team driving back and forth all over the huge desert scenario, with random AI events unfolding, with an even smaller Insurgent team of actual players.
Player amount would be weighted like 12-20 Blufor players, with 2-3 Insurgent players. Obviously with larger amount of ambient AI and insurgent AI mixed in.


I love SQUAD, and Mil-sim games, Simulations, and it would be incredible to join the development team. I would literally learn the tools required to be useful...

Thank you

-JDubz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great first post wish it was split in two. 

 

No to the special forces, everyone wants to be the specials . Would like to see customisation (WW3) thats been said aint going to happen. 

 

Like the suggestion various mission modes. some good suggestion there. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I do enjoy the notion of more factions and diverstiy in a battle I don't think having some guys play spec ops COD games is the answer. Hell there might even be griefers who teamkill spec ops squad members cause they didn't get in the squad and wanted to play with the cool OP guns.

Though it would add more load times and more friendly fire as people with difficulty checking the map might not recognize the 20 different outfits your team has.

 

On the topic of player customisation I have to say this: The military does not allow much customisation, a patch here or there sure but no different camo or weapon skins or what have you. Spec ops can customize weaponry depending on preference and choice but IMHO it doesnt have a proper place in Squad. So adding customisation while  it might have some form of patches is mostly useless and makes people harder to differentiate from hostiles.

 

Additionally locking better gear to squads just allows the more expensive PC players to take whatever they want and the rest is sitting with the scraps. Especially if the squadleader kicks everybody except his friends so he can play with them with their better gear.

 

And on the topic of the game concepts:

Though some would be fun and might even add variety in a dedicated PvE server kind of way, I don't think most of them work in a proper PvP enviroment. Especially spawning in hazards out of nowhere for one team to deal with whilst the other just trundles along just ties up resources for on the teams and makes the fighting more onesided.

 

And to conclude:

It seems you really want to get in to the spec ops power fantasy of having better gear and NVGs and shit whilst on special missions, but what I like in Squad and PR is that you're just some random grunt doing whatever your squad leader might think will help win the fight faster. Be this creating distractions for the enemy team or leading the frontal assault. And having these side objectives IMHO if they would be implemented should be player defined instead of just something the AI overlords say you should deal with. Like a commander marking a mortar emplacement and telling/asking a squad to take care of it.

 

And the better gear for faster players or squad leaders and their friends just kicks the slower pc guys in the nuts because they can't afford more data or an SSD to boot faster and thus they rarely if ever get the chance to play with the cool toys in the box. Unless you set arbitrary limitations but those are shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. So the No is: Not everybody has an expensive computer, griefers, and it isn't Call of Duty?
"I don't think having some guys play spec ops COD games is the answer."
It's variation on the battlefield, exactly like what happens in real combat. What is Call of Duty about 1 team having NVG in low light? It would even be further balanced by the small amount of people that have them.


Anyways, A Special forces team: armed with a grappling hook and a little bird would be pretty similar to what we had in Project Reality.
It would basically mix Project Reality, ArmA3, and SQUAD. 
Much like Early SQUAD when only the US had the ACOG sights. It was really epic.

2. " can't afford more data or an SSD to boot faster"
Your saying that there shouldn't be a mass of features in a game because people will have slow loading times.....

Riiight, would hate to play a game you develop. 

3. "Would like to see customisation (WW3) " I did not say anything about that.
No more customization than picking a Red dot or an ACOG (as squad lead) which already exists ingame. 


I'm not saying balance the entire game like this every round, I'm saying a game type on a specific map.
Insurgency gamemode would have the above features. 

liamNL: "It seems you really want to get in to the spec ops power fantasy of having better gear and NVGs and shit whilst on special missions, but what I like in Squad and PR is that you're just some random grunt doing whatever your squad leader might think will help"

It seems you really are into the submissive fantasy of being dominated by the commands of a more powerful..man.. But i'm describing a whole new gamemode. If you've ever played ArmA or any other simulation I think you may understand. It'd be pre-set by whoever is running the server. 

The majority of your reasons for a no, are bad ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Giving one group of guys a significant advantage makes the game fun for them but makes it worse for the other team. And night layouts for the moment are broken by guys upping their Gamma. And variation isn't the problem it's that some guys get the cool toys to **** about with whilst the rest is stuck with normal gear. PR didn't have spec ops shite, the only spec ops in that game was if you got yourself organized with the assets available. Additionally the general gist of this game and PR is that we are playing frontline soldiers, not some spec ops behind the lines guys raiding supply lines (totally happens, instead of y'know sniping). Sure you can still do spec ops tactics but you shouldn't have better gear just because.

 

2. The argument was that some people won't get the chance to play with the cool toys, not that we should limit what gets added. You might want to play as spec ops special boys one round but it's always taken because their pcs got SSDs and you can't afford it.

 

3. This customisation is already in game so what is the problem then?

 

4. I squadlead enough to know you are wrong, and adding intentions to my words just makes you out to be a terrible person for projecting shit on others because they don't agree with you.

 

The way you explained it in the initial post makes it seem like a normal AAS additive where some ****ers get high gear whilst the rest is ****ed. I have played simulation games and know what you mean with your latest post of scenarios and spec ops missions. But in my opinion those only work because they fight AI, whilst if you uptier one team with spec ops gear and the other is just normal infantry they just become targets for the other team to shoot instead of fight against. Additionally if spec ops squads were added to insurgency be that the whole team or just one or two squads. It would still suck balls to play the insurgents, just getting picked off by suppressed guys from 500 meters away and not being able to retaliate till they get close gets pretty freaking boring.

 

Additionally just saying "your reasons for disliking your concept are bad" is in no way furthering any discussion whatsoever.

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
Sign in to follow this  

×