JuX

I have no doubt the Apex will be reviving old time players (such as myself) back in to the world of ArmA. Whole new map to explore in jungle / archipelago environment, along with improvements to make naval assaults a valid option. Boost in returning veterans could potentially improve overall experience for everyone.

Since apex content has become available on beta build. I have done test piloting with new VTOL vehicles. They are great in most aspects and can see potential uses for them, but sadly them being DLC may hold them back a bit from taking over key roles on servers. The CSAT Y-32 Xi'an VTOL vehicle would be great for combining CAS and transportation together in to singular package, with its outstanding speed and mobility. It can as well rotate while stationary, which would be great use in modded aspect if there is stable enough carrier mod. Id also recommend removing the ATGM's from it, as it would be a bit overpowered. The NATO V-44X Blackfish VTOL vehicle is high capacity and looks good, but it is very hard to maneuver and just slow to mobilize. Pending how the vehicle transportation on VTOLs will be implemented, it could be potential candidate for getting vehicles to the front, thou Xi'an has similar variant, but its considerably smaller in scale. It is also capable of turning while stationary, but there is small margin of error and require a bit effort, unlike the Xi'an. It also has the fire support variant, that makes the Blackfish literally a AC-130 gunship. This would be interesting addition to combat support for Platoon command (on occasion), as it has 4 seats on it for pilot, co-pilot and 2x gunners. Its weapons determine it always has to have left side facing towards the AO in order to serve its function. This could be used as command vehicle to observe and command the platoon, as well the occasional fire support. Afterall it's altitude should negate terrain interference on radios. Once DLC officially comes out, would like to see VTOL vehicles in action. Also the fact these aren't mods is a bonus for stability. (You can play the Apex DLC content by enabling sneakpreview beta version on steam, but probably require ownership of said DLC)

Did i just understand this correctly. Squad setups have been changed now? Despite current majority public opinion saying "nope". Well i wont envy the squad leaders whom have to deal with their own fireteams now on top of the other two. Along with additional radio comms. Now to the subject at hand... Mentioned this toxicity a while back as well and i guess no measures were taken. I was majority of the time in squad leader position. So i can tell you there is nothing wrong in how structure of the commanding / squads are done, but it's simply the members that are at fault. I think people simply do NOT understand what leaders have to deal with on regular basis, when you fool around or wont communicate. As well the "i am better then you mentality", which i saw first hand when i returned after long break from disasters and new members didn't recognize me. So i guess it would be time for shock therapy then and have people who never command, experience the disorder.

Indeed i am talking about EU3, but i did all these paradrops during casual gameplay hours. Even without of long range radios simply cause you couldn't carry a backpack and tuned to other squads / commands shortwaves to communicate. In vanilla you wouldn't have to deal with such complexity. You don't need gamenight to setup a paradropping squad. All you just need are volunteers. Haven't played the vanilla in ages, but hopefully it still offers people to form their own squads.

I have operated a paratrooper squad multiple times on gauntlet. Designated as "Rangers" if some recall. Our casualties on deployment were pretty low and no pilots were endangered in these operations. In general our success rate was good, Including in operations where friendly squad was under fire, in center of AO and we dropped on top of them to reinforce them. I have also personally built and tested different NATO builds to operate in such conditions (without backpacks). They can do this with ease, with key point such everyone holding their own medical equipment in their person. Iv heard the stomach backpack have been added now as well. So communication and medical is easier. If you wish to operate a paratrooper squad, then assemble a separate squad and make it known. So people knowledges this intention and wont be surprised. Maybe even interested in joining. Dont know what current policy is to this, but i personally loved the variation. It was awesome. Iv had one particullary EPIC ranger experience, when zeus decided to take action in operation. It was something equal to movie "lone survivor", constant enemy pressure in woods/hills without support. However think we had only 1 actual casualty and everyone els were just f*cked up.

Squad leaders should often tag along with one of the fireteams and fight along side them. His independence allows him to be flexible in doing his tasks as well join in the fight. This is the responsibility of the fireteam leader. They are under his direct command and supervision. It is sadly true that it's often the squad leader, is the one forced to interject with fireteam issues.

"Merging everyone in to one squad" Didn't workout and that is why we have the current system. I don't exactly understand how long range radios are relevant to this reformation of squads. Frankly don't exactly understand what you are trying to say with this easing to becoming SL. Just to be sure. Fireteam leaders are NOT to react to orders given by platoon command, unless there is special circumstances like dead squad leader, but rather relay information to SL if he had missed them. It's squad leaders job to coordinate the fireteams so entire squad can operate in sync (Chain of command). Keep in mind, fireteam leader and squad leader are two different things with different jobs. Despite their similarities.

This is true. However what you shouldn't do is nullify other peoples criticism by implying that this is what you were discussing about. Without anykind of context with new idea along with "evidence" that contradicts the new idea itself. Only thing i understood from you posts is that you believe structure of the squad is to blame for lack of squad leaders. Your solution to make squad leader position more appealing. Is to add more responsibility to them on the basis, and i quote " This way, there is less pressure to lead the squad as you have more dudes with you". (Id personally would be lot more stressed/pressured to lead a fireteam in addition with everything els). Since you want alternative suggestions id suggest training members in how to lead a squad or a fireteam. Leading a whole squad may seem intimidating, but actually might even be more relaxed then being fireteam leader

Looks like we found the root of the problem on this topic. "turn infantry squad into single 10-man unit". Your post contradicts the poll now. As it contradicts itself as well. 2+5+5=12. 4+4+4=12 ("This way, there is less pressure to lead the squad as you have more dudes with you"). No one is giving you alternatives cause they and me, do not see anything wrong with the current system. There is a reason squad leader does not have men in his fireteam. So he can focus on more administrative tasks, such as commanding and communicating. Specially useful if Squad leader is forced to command the entire platoon. EDIT : I have a feeling people don't step to command for entirely different reasons then structure of the squad. I personally found the atmosphere among the members toxic at the time and quit commanding for it, long ago.

Im having a feeling you have pronounced your point incorrectly in some fashion, cause now it aint making sense. Last time i played all squad/fireteam leaders are displayed on the map with markers for everyone, such as Alpha 1-1. So i assume you want leaders to see all their riflemen displayed on the map with the blue dots. This is unnecessary information you do not need. Only leader positions are relevant to the operation and if you need that extra information. That is what the communication is for. Also other squads need to be aware of your fireteams positions. Also current system compliments Platoon commands capabilities to manage the operation, by knowing the locations of all the fire teams. Suppose you have never played as Platoon commander Anyway enough of this, like it was said. If it aint broke, dont fix it

Ryko is basically suggesting to convert the squad system the way it used to be. The extra markers make all the difference in situational awareness. If you order fireteam to flank. Their position is not projected on the map. Their position is unknown, unless its relayed through entire platoon (short wave -> long wave -> short wave). It will also make reinforcing problematic to people who join in-progress or respawn. The simplicity i refer to, is the markers. You will always know where you are suppose to be and where everyone els is.

I just don't see the point making things more complicated just to get grids around people. Not sure you were there at "the dawn of time", but current squad system is major improvement over what there originally was. If you merge the fireteams. It will cause issues with organization of them, thus they should remain independent. Currently it is very simple. "This is your fireteam" & "Here is your fireteam leader". The hud is already doing what you desire here. Id take few friendly fire incidents over mass confusion anyday

Use of different weapon types that aren't NATO standard isn't the reason why people get teamkilled. If you engage target based sounds of their weapons then your doing it wrong. Knowing your friendly squads positions and identifying their uniforms is how it should be done and that is why people often die cause they look more like the enemy, not cause of the gun they carry. At least thats how i have mostly teamkilled people, cause they used more enemy looking uniforms. In early versions of gauntlet i occationally used AK (NATO attachment compatible) variant on my "Ranger" squad which paradropped in various locations. Using it to obtain ammunition from dead enemies if running low and i NEVER got shot by teammates nor did anyone under my command for using AK, even at times when paradropped in to shitstorm to reinforce / assist friendly squad. Blaming "guns people carry" is ridiculous. Sure it can happen, but its not the culprit to problems of teamkilling. If anything id rather look in to lack of communication and situational awareness.

Sure, why not?

This disrespectful behavior is the main reason i took long breaks from ArmA. You people just assume everyone you never heard of before is a new comer. I honestly prefer noobies who don't know the rules over many who use this "im better then you attitude" all the time, cause you never heard my name before. I brought it up in the past, nothing changed and things are now moving to punish new comers when i found out the general ingame attitude being a major problem. If people really wanna over complicate things with bureaucracy then f*ck it, not my problem.

You know what, ill just make it easy for everyone and quit ArmA entirely. Im done with bureaucracy. Ill go enjoy the simplicity that is Squad. "The only thing that saves us from the bureaucracy is inefficiency. An efficient bureaucracy is the greatest threat to liberty." - Eugene McCarthy

I would like you to theorize your system and how exactly it will deliver what it is promising, all i see is promises, no execution. Expecting majority to read whole set of rules completely is optimistic at best, just like people reading license agreements, but most major concern is how and who is enforcing this system? Im sorry, but i have to bash your argument hard, cause its WAY too optimistic on its projections. I do give little support on Arkods argument as well, passworded and whole process to get access to the passworded server can be intimidating, as well give second thoughts if they bother going through the hassle of getting in.

Oh my goodness, how can this even be a problem? Applications your suggesting with integration of password does nothing, but apply unnecessary burden to the administration. Reading rules is kind of like reading license agreement. Glancing through and clicking accept.

Would be hilarious if it wasn't april fools joke, would take 3 years for average active person to get A-10

That isn't exactly what veterancy stands for by definition. By comparison removing veterancy status from real life soldiers doesn't seem right. Veterancy by it's meaning has nothing to do with technological savvy (mods). Nor absence from service. This is why im asking these questions cause in here, people may have completely different applications for them and asked for proper refinement of the policy. Iv spent at least about a year actively playing on EU3, but i got burnt out and taking long period of breaks from it. I have no doubt other members will get burnt out on it as well at some point. I see Miksi has done some refinement on the requirements, so presume absence isn't an issue. (You can take man out of the army, but you can't take the army out of the man).

I understand what you are getting at, but doesn't this borderline the aspect of "i am better then you" mentality. The requirements are also a bit vague towards actual veteran members of the community. Some including myself id consider as veterans on EU3, but do not qualify the ranking of vet, for the lack of constant activity for 3 months. Which also brings up the point of existing vets. If you gain this veterancy and become inactive for long period of time, will you loose this ranking? Since even Veterans can be unexperienced in certain aspects of the game. Such as operating aerial vehicles, which no doubt some veteran players still cannot do properly. So can they really lead by example, when their abilities aren't been tested? Is this an issue that is covered in the moderator discussion? Are capabilities of vets being tested or is it matter of vouching? Think the policy behind this "program" requires some refinement.

Last patch got my fps back to solid ground, so.... must be something,which it doesn't like about your computer or configuration your using.

Keep in mind, people havent been playing it for a while, cause of the horrid patches that appeared. Now however it's solid and only a matter of time before someone arranges a group to jump start those server. Once the vehicles get added in to the build, then activity increase is bound to happen on Squad.

Haven't played in a long while, but goofy behavior is something that may occur when low populated or there isn't proper command structure. I didn't have issues with that as much, but had some problems with people following orders, even if it was a bad or a good decision. New members from that time may have improved since then and id just recommend you go try game nights on EU3, there you can see better, what the server can be at its best. as for uniforms and loadouts, last time i checked the only restriction was to remain in your specific role loadout weapons. However on gamenights uniforms are restricted and often so is the weaponry / loadout. Formations can be used anytime by the leader, at least most people here do know formations. I mostly use only staggered column / column and line, most simple commands that wont cause mass confusion. Convoying generally have performed well, but its when reaching contact occationally resulted is mass disorganization if purpose is to keep moving and i mean like massive spread of 1km radius. (Yes, this managed to happen at least once) Dont know if the radio freq. are shitty again, but during the times i preferred when people kept when on defaults, so each time you die and load your gear it would always be automatically at the same frequencies with your squad and longwaves. Making own unnecessary custom channels just caused headache. At anyrate, as squad leader you have authority over your fireteams, if you tell them to do something, its their obligation to make it happen. They can always say its not possible and such, but they arent allowed to go rambo and do their own thing.

Seems like the best choice would be to carry the deployable stationary AT weapon, think those had significant ammunition count and isn't as heavy. Also, this is why i prefer carry the RPG-26, cause its small and lightest of the basic rocket launchers + looks like the LAW launcher.