Arkod

So currently within the 12-Man squads we have a two man command unit, followed by two Fire teams consisting of 5-Men. Currently we don't have much issue filling the team leaders and the rest of the fire team along with the medic however not many people enjoy the squad lead role. 

This has lead to the team leaders often taking charge as a squad lead which alone isn't much of an issue however why have the player slot available if its really not wanted? Hence my idea of reducing the squad size by a factor of 2. In the current standings once we have both fire teams full people go towards the specialist roles, MMG, MAT and HAT and sometimes even the second Vortex which leads to A1 and A2 splitting and essentially acting as two separate elements sharing the same radio frequency which once you throw in some Pilot and specialist teams and the current mind point of TLs don't need/take LR Radio's it doesn't take long for organisation to breakdown.
 
Now a simple solution that may be suggested is why don't people just take the Squad Leader role however there is only one reason people don't take it as of now, they don't enjoy it. Just saying to 'man up' and take the roll would have no effect as why bother if you don't enjoy the role?
 
A brief example of the kind of layout I would suggest to hopefully go towards fixing this:
Platoon Command
Platoon etc
 
Alpha Squad Lead
Alpha Medic
Alpha Autorifleman
Alpha Autorifleman Asst.
Alpha Rifleman AT
Alpha Marksman
 
Bravo Squad Lead
Bravo Medic
Bravo Autorifleman
Bravo Autorifleman Asst.
Bravo Rifleman AT
Bravo Engineer
 
And then the same old repeated stuff below. No change to Spc squads and such. Hopefully this would reduce the weight upon ASLs shoulders as an extra 6 men is taken out of the equation along with such a small squad would mean the ASL would have more of a combat role rather than the sitting back that often occurs. Additionally those who enjoy the commanding from the back still have the platoon command as an option. 

Takistan version of Gauntlet doesn't have AT4 for fireteams. I assume it's to give MAT a bigger and more defined role. Even though I agree that this kind of change was needed to make MAT more useful, I still think that a Fireteam should have at least 1 AT4, in case MAT is not able to respond to the threat.
 
I propose renaming Rifleman into Rifleman AT and allowing them to pick up AT4 from arsenal so each fireteam has an option to get at least has 1 AT4.
 
EDIT: Forgot to mention that fireteam members can still get light AT in form of m72 LAW, but it's noticeably less powerful than AT4.

Even though additional channels will probably help, the issue comes from the fact that ASL is played as both SL and CMD role at the same time. SL should only be responsible for his 2 fireteams (unless CMD is KIA), not Alpha+Bravo+Vortex+MAT+whatever extra team is there. Command role exists for a reason and that is to coordinate the different assets available.
 
It may be due to how role selection is handled right now, but unfortunately I don't have any potential solutions to propose...

Renaming one of the Vortex to something else is needed for sure. We have Torch and Hammer instead of Torch 1 and Torch 2. I don't see a reason it can't be applied to air units aswel.
 
The main issue with merging support teams into 1-2 general teams is that players won't know what team they're joining from the lobby. It may lead to frustration for some players. For example, a player wants to play as MAT (AT role) and joins FSG, but it turns out that current FSG is HMG. In this case his desire of being an AT unit isn't fulfilled and he may leave the server or have undesired experience.
 
Then there's also a concern of how do you divide the team if you want them to be both MAT and HMG? (As I understand, the idea is that a single FSG can have several roles at the same time - hence the 5-6 players per FSG). I'm pretty sure that most CMD/SL players would prefer having exact markers on the map to locate each support team.
 
Instead of having 2 teams of 5-6 players, I think having 3 teams of 3 players (lead, gunner, assistant) would work better. Essentially just renaming current MAT, HAT, MMG into generic FSG teams and let the CMD/SL dictate which weapons they'll use.
 
Since we're on topic of redesigning the structure, I'd like to suggest moving Marksman slots from Fireteams into SL (conserving 1 marksman per squad) or merge them with FSG teams - creating proper sniper/recon units. It's just a personal preference: I like teams moving together instead of leaving people behind (marksman), which is done fairly frequently on the server (the leaving behind part).

Renaming one of the Vortex to something else is needed for sure. We have Torch and Hammer instead of Torch 1 and Torch 2. I don't see a reason it can't be applied to air units aswel.
 
The main issue with merging support teams into 1-2 general teams is that players won't know what team they're joining from the lobby. It may lead to frustration for some players. For example, a player wants to play as MAT (AT role) and joins FSG, but it turns out that current FSG is HMG. In this case his desire of being an AT unit isn't fulfilled and he may leave the server or have undesired experience.
 
Then there's also a concern of how do you divide the team if you want them to be both MAT and HMG? (As I understand, the idea is that a single FSG can have several roles at the same time - hence the 5-6 players per FSG). I'm pretty sure that most CMD/SL players would prefer having exact markers on the map to locate each support team.
 
Instead of having 2 teams of 5-6 players, I think having 3 teams of 3 players (lead, gunner, assistant) would work better. Essentially just renaming current MAT, HAT, MMG into generic FSG teams and let the CMD/SL dictate which weapons they'll use.
 
Since we're on topic of redesigning the structure, I'd like to suggest moving Marksman slots from Fireteams into SL (conserving 1 marksman per squad) or merge them with FSG teams - creating proper sniper/recon units. It's just a personal preference: I like teams moving together instead of leaving people behind (marksman), which is done fairly frequently on the server (the leaving behind part).

Hello lovely people,
I thought to put this into the request board straight away, but someone with an opinion suggested general feedback first might work out better.
 
TL;DR: Change the call signs of Vortex / one of the Vortex teams, and merge support squads into FSG.
 
Vortex call signs, while nothing wrong with the name inherently, could work with a simple relabel to a name as decided on by the community or the Steering Committee. As yet Vortex is only distinguished by a single number which is easy to miss or forget in transmissions, especially during heated situations (yesterday's Zeus OP proved that to me in particular). We previously had Talon, and as I understand that was done away with because it suggested a CAS-specific role.
 
A number of ideas came up during a quick discussion on TS, some of which were as follows:
Torrent Whiplash chess-related, specifically Knight, Rook, Bishop, Pawn Phantom Reaper  
(Thanks to @Copey and @Kingfisher. Copey foreshadowed an extensive list of ideas, so stay tuned for that.)
 
What I think this will do is prevent general confusion and allow pilots and co-pilots to add the single number to their call sign instead. Easier access, less risk to forgetting a number. And quite obviously it adds a bit of variety, which is always nice to have.
So we could mix things up and rename both pilot teams, or have Vortex + something else. Feel free to chime in with your own ideas for call signs.
 
---
 
The other thing that followed up in that discussion of call signs were the support teams, e.g., MAT and MMG.
As it stands we have two MMG teams, MAT and HAT which very rarely are all filled, let alone used effectively. Merging them into two general, say, 5- or 6-slot teams would enable them a bit of flexibility in their weapon of choice at the discretion of ASL / CMD. There will be less of an urge to reslot from MMG to MAT if required, and a general fire support group could also always deploy statics such as Mk19s and TOWs instead.
Perhaps give these FSGs unique call signs as well, just for the fancy.
 
Edit: Refer to my follow-up post that tried to include some of the feedback. TL;DR#2: Have 2x FSG with 6 slots each, one FSG specialised in AT, the other general and flexible.
 
So I would like everyone's feedback on this, as especially the FSG thing would change things up dramatically. What do you think? Would you amend something?
Once a sufficient amount of input has been gathered, this will be moved to or recreated in the request board for a final decision.
 
Cheers.

OPERATION ALIBI
Summary: a campaign-oriented, multi-session operation in which US Army SOCOM Green Berets (code name Panther) conduct special operations in the country of N'Ziwasogo.
Session 2 date: SEPTEMBER 30, 1900GMT (1500EST)
Your time: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=Operation+Alibi&iso=20160930T1900&p1=0
Signup here:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSd7LvtLuhrMSkYFz4W5U1_hFvcIP0YX6vwzCwkdm1U-x5pnvw/viewform
 
Background
August, 2012. The government of N'Ziwasogo has been toppled in a military coup d'etat and the armed forces have assumed control.  The military junta has established martial law.  A group of guerillas, the Front de la Liberation du N'Ziwasogo seeks to restore the government to power, but they are woefully underequipped and poorly trained.  The whole mess has made it hard for international aid to get through: the FLN were on the USA's list of terrorist groups, and the junta doesn't want any outside intervention as they commence a program of ethnic cleansing.  Unofficially the US government has made contact with the FLN and will seek to covertly back them in overthrowing the junta.
 
Status
After a successful HALO paradrop into the region, Panther made contact with Atlanta outside of Gabu.  Government forces staged a major assault into the town, which Panther successfully resisted.  After leaving the area and establishing their FOB, Panther made a successful assault on on the town of Mansoa to secure its supplies.
 
Mission - CHAPTER 2
 
For the last week Panther has been conducting recon surveillance of the area, carefully avoiding contact.  A list of targets has been assembled and sent to Crossroad for evaluation.  Panther must decide which targets to engage, and how.
 

lets sum up:
 
30 minutes waiting for server start&latecomers
45 minutes connecting & dress-up to scavenge some mis-matched OPFOR leftover gear
15 minutes driving truck throu the woods
15 minutes coming close to the objective
 
The moment we enter the village, walking with 2 teammates in front of me and 2 behind me - bang bang, instakill from god knows where.
Thou I wouldn't be suprised if that was blue-on-blue, I did had OPFOR PKM in hands.
 
spectator mode bugs after 30 seconds and no longer works with nighvision (only pitch black is seen)
 
10/10, will come to help save resistance again
 
 
If I can plead for some changes with Ryko:
Please spawn players with pre-loaded gear. Please don't wait for players who are not online in time, or did not downloaded their MODS in advance. Give the slots to replacements right away.
If necessary, latecomers filling primary slots can be teleported by Zeus to join the rest. just these two things will cut at least 45 minutes from the starting delay

It is fine if you're going for a realistic gameplay, but for the type of gameplay we have on EU3 it may be too "strict".
 
FYI: Normal jog (weapon lowered) uses less stamina than moving with raised weapon and slow jog (lowered weapon + C (combat pace)) doesn't use any stamina, even recovers it slowly. So when you're traversing a medium-long distances where the amount of enemies is low or none (like from LZ towards border of AO or after completing it) you should move with weapon lowered and consider slow jog.
 
That said, I would suggest testing different load values (0.5-0.75 seems to be decent) and recovery factor (1.5-2).
 
E: those values are for ACE Advanced Fatigue module. Clarifying just in case.

I wasn't there, so I may be wrong on something, but here's my opinion regarding issues like this in general.
 
As I understand, Origins made a fireteam (or a squad?) run the length of a runway up and down as punishment for "fucking around" (I assume it's the more or less typical behaviour we see in EU3, where people don't listen or just ignore SL/TL).
 
Now, this kind of punishment may be done in Real Life or some Milsim/Realism communities, but EU3 is a fairly casual server compared to more structured Units. By making a whole team run for however long it was, you're not only punishing that team, but probably someone else as well (It could be the whole server if the team is needed somewhere). Also, running isn't a real punishment in this game, all you have to do is press a button. I consider this more of a waste of time than anything else and EU3 already wastes a good amount of time during normal gameplay, which may be the reason why people start pissing around to begin with - boredom.
 
If someone's breaking a rule, follow your admin procedure, which I assume is the warn-kick-ban. Deal with it fast so you can continue with normal gameplay.
 
 
If you have a moderator strategy, then either follow it or change it. There is no point of having it if you're not going to enforce it. Hopefully people will stop pissing around after they notice that it's actually punished.

I wasn't there, so I may be wrong on something, but here's my opinion regarding issues like this in general.
 
As I understand, Origins made a fireteam (or a squad?) run the length of a runway up and down as punishment for "fucking around" (I assume it's the more or less typical behaviour we see in EU3, where people don't listen or just ignore SL/TL).
 
Now, this kind of punishment may be done in Real Life or some Milsim/Realism communities, but EU3 is a fairly casual server compared to more structured Units. By making a whole team run for however long it was, you're not only punishing that team, but probably someone else as well (It could be the whole server if the team is needed somewhere). Also, running isn't a real punishment in this game, all you have to do is press a button. I consider this more of a waste of time than anything else and EU3 already wastes a good amount of time during normal gameplay, which may be the reason why people start pissing around to begin with - boredom.
 
If someone's breaking a rule, follow your admin procedure, which I assume is the warn-kick-ban. Deal with it fast so you can continue with normal gameplay.
 
 
If you have a moderator strategy, then either follow it or change it. There is no point of having it if you're not going to enforce it. Hopefully people will stop pissing around after they notice that it's actually punished.

It's the reality, no matter how admins feel about that comment. Most people won't read the rules, and from those that do read, many won't remember them. 
 
I also have to agree with Jux about the attitude towards new players. More than once I've seen "veteran" players try to ""teach"" new players about the rules by yelling at them, saying that they can't use their current weapon/camo/whatever. That's just being arrogant, not helpful. If you don't want to spend a couple of minutes talking to the new guy and actually point him in the right direction, you're better off not speaking at all.
 
That kinda applies on the main topic here - the Password and TS. Instead of preventing people from joining, why not help those who forget to launch TS, switch channel in TS or have issues with ACRE+TS keybinds?
 
A couple of days ago there was a new guy on the server who had issues with keybinds and couldn't speak ingame. The answer he got from players ingame was something along the lines of "You can't play right now. Disconnect, fix your stuff and then come back". How someone who has never used ACRE before is supposed to know where the problem is and/or how to fix it?
 
Damn, I'm going off-topic again... What are the advantages of putting a password? I personally have a hard time finding anything positive.

I don't think there is any need for a password. I haven't had any issues with people joining who don't have TS. Most "issues" I've had is with people who don't know how to use ACRE properly (Proper keybindings in TS/ingame, ACRE shortcuts, etc.)
 
Also, keep in mind that if someone joins without TeamSpeak they get a black screen with a message saying they MUST be in TS in order to play - http://prntscr.com/apbd5m .
 
On top of that, putting a password on the server may discourage new players to try EU3.
 
What I think may happen:
 
A - Server without password
1) Player sees another open AW Server - eu3
2) Finds out it has mod and installs them to give it a try.
2) Joins the server without TS (for whatever reason)
3) Sees the black screen - http://prntscr.com/apbd5m
4a) Joins TS and plays
4b) Doesn't want to play with TS and leaves
 
Result: potential new player in EU3
 
B - Server with password
1a) Player sees a locked/passworded AW server.
1b) Player has his filter setup to not show passworded servers - never sees EU3.
2) Assumes it is private or for testing and doesn't bother to see what it is about
 
Result: potential new player lost because of the password
 
Those examples probably are extreme, but what I want to illustrate is that there are players who directly ignore or don't see passworded servers. AW offers public servers for everyone to join, I see no reason to limit that with passwords. Of course there will be people who will investigate what EU3 is even after seeing it is a passworded server, but I think those players are a minority.
 

I don't think there is any need for a password. I haven't had any issues with people joining who don't have TS. Most "issues" I've had is with people who don't know how to use ACRE properly (Proper keybindings in TS/ingame, ACRE shortcuts, etc.)
 
Also, keep in mind that if someone joins without TeamSpeak they get a black screen with a message saying they MUST be in TS in order to play - http://prntscr.com/apbd5m .
 
On top of that, putting a password on the server may discourage new players to try EU3.
 
What I think may happen:
 
A - Server without password
1) Player sees another open AW Server - eu3
2) Finds out it has mod and installs them to give it a try.
2) Joins the server without TS (for whatever reason)
3) Sees the black screen - http://prntscr.com/apbd5m
4a) Joins TS and plays
4b) Doesn't want to play with TS and leaves
 
Result: potential new player in EU3
 
B - Server with password
1a) Player sees a locked/passworded AW server.
1b) Player has his filter setup to not show passworded servers - never sees EU3.
2) Assumes it is private or for testing and doesn't bother to see what it is about
 
Result: potential new player lost because of the password
 
Those examples probably are extreme, but what I want to illustrate is that there are players who directly ignore or don't see passworded servers. AW offers public servers for everyone to join, I see no reason to limit that with passwords. Of course there will be people who will investigate what EU3 is even after seeing it is a passworded server, but I think those players are a minority.
 

I don't think there is any need for a password. I haven't had any issues with people joining who don't have TS. Most "issues" I've had is with people who don't know how to use ACRE properly (Proper keybindings in TS/ingame, ACRE shortcuts, etc.)
 
Also, keep in mind that if someone joins without TeamSpeak they get a black screen with a message saying they MUST be in TS in order to play - http://prntscr.com/apbd5m .
 
On top of that, putting a password on the server may discourage new players to try EU3.
 
What I think may happen:
 
A - Server without password
1) Player sees another open AW Server - eu3
2) Finds out it has mod and installs them to give it a try.
2) Joins the server without TS (for whatever reason)
3) Sees the black screen - http://prntscr.com/apbd5m
4a) Joins TS and plays
4b) Doesn't want to play with TS and leaves
 
Result: potential new player in EU3
 
B - Server with password
1a) Player sees a locked/passworded AW server.
1b) Player has his filter setup to not show passworded servers - never sees EU3.
2) Assumes it is private or for testing and doesn't bother to see what it is about
 
Result: potential new player lost because of the password
 
Those examples probably are extreme, but what I want to illustrate is that there are players who directly ignore or don't see passworded servers. AW offers public servers for everyone to join, I see no reason to limit that with passwords. Of course there will be people who will investigate what EU3 is even after seeing it is a passworded server, but I think those players are a minority.
 

I don't think there is any need for a password. I haven't had any issues with people joining who don't have TS. Most "issues" I've had is with people who don't know how to use ACRE properly (Proper keybindings in TS/ingame, ACRE shortcuts, etc.)
 
Also, keep in mind that if someone joins without TeamSpeak they get a black screen with a message saying they MUST be in TS in order to play - http://prntscr.com/apbd5m .
 
On top of that, putting a password on the server may discourage new players to try EU3.
 
What I think may happen:
 
A - Server without password
1) Player sees another open AW Server - eu3
2) Finds out it has mod and installs them to give it a try.
2) Joins the server without TS (for whatever reason)
3) Sees the black screen - http://prntscr.com/apbd5m
4a) Joins TS and plays
4b) Doesn't want to play with TS and leaves
 
Result: potential new player in EU3
 
B - Server with password
1a) Player sees a locked/passworded AW server.
1b) Player has his filter setup to not show passworded servers - never sees EU3.
2) Assumes it is private or for testing and doesn't bother to see what it is about
 
Result: potential new player lost because of the password
 
Those examples probably are extreme, but what I want to illustrate is that there are players who directly ignore or don't see passworded servers. AW offers public servers for everyone to join, I see no reason to limit that with passwords. Of course there will be people who will investigate what EU3 is even after seeing it is a passworded server, but I think those players are a minority.
 

I don't think there is any need for a password. I haven't had any issues with people joining who don't have TS. Most "issues" I've had is with people who don't know how to use ACRE properly (Proper keybindings in TS/ingame, ACRE shortcuts, etc.)
 
Also, keep in mind that if someone joins without TeamSpeak they get a black screen with a message saying they MUST be in TS in order to play - http://prntscr.com/apbd5m .
 
On top of that, putting a password on the server may discourage new players to try EU3.
 
What I think may happen:
 
A - Server without password
1) Player sees another open AW Server - eu3
2) Finds out it has mod and installs them to give it a try.
2) Joins the server without TS (for whatever reason)
3) Sees the black screen - http://prntscr.com/apbd5m
4a) Joins TS and plays
4b) Doesn't want to play with TS and leaves
 
Result: potential new player in EU3
 
B - Server with password
1a) Player sees a locked/passworded AW server.
1b) Player has his filter setup to not show passworded servers - never sees EU3.
2) Assumes it is private or for testing and doesn't bother to see what it is about
 
Result: potential new player lost because of the password
 
Those examples probably are extreme, but what I want to illustrate is that there are players who directly ignore or don't see passworded servers. AW offers public servers for everyone to join, I see no reason to limit that with passwords. Of course there will be people who will investigate what EU3 is even after seeing it is a passworded server, but I think those players are a minority.
 

Ok, so a couple of topics have come up and have had quite the heated debate. That is fine and all but I am going to have to ask everyone to please keep responses ontopic and please keep it civilized.
 
Second note about this. EVERYONE IN THE COMMUNITY HAS THE RIGHT TO RESPOND TO A THREAD EVEN IF IT MIGHT NOT EFFECT THEM. Do not tell people that they can not/should not comment on a topic because they don't play on a certain server. I think that Ryko put it best. "I'd like to point out that everyone here is part of the Ahoyworld community, so let's stop the censorship and divisiveness?  Everyone's got an opinion, and the right to share it."

Every time I read "MilSim" and "Eu3" in the same sentence I die a little on the inside.

"A modded and organized public server"
 
I don't think there's much more to it. It's still a public server, like EU1/2, but it has mods and people try to play in an organized manner.

So, to be clear, EU3 players are not entitled to express their opinions in this thread?
 
- R

"A modded and organized public server"
 
I don't think there's much more to it. It's still a public server, like EU1/2, but it has mods and people try to play in an organized manner.

"A modded and organized public server"
 
I don't think there's much more to it. It's still a public server, like EU1/2, but it has mods and people try to play in an organized manner.

I don't think that making another -lighter- modset will help. Other than some technical stuff (actual server, mission/s, more admins?) it probably will divide the community even more. Right now AW has 2 player bases: those who play on EU1/2 and those who play on EU3. Ocasionally players jump between the two, but generally speaking there are "core" players for each modset.
 
If you open another server with a middle-ground modset, it may create another sub-community, and from general experience, dividing a community like that is never a good idea. It potentially could create more problems than solve. 
 
On top of all of that, openining another server may bleed players from EU3, which already is suffering from low amount of players on average compared to 1/2. I would prefer if AW focused on promoting EU3 instead of opening new servers. 
 
I have a feeling that players are "intimidated" by EU3 and they can't just hop and play to try it because they have to download 20+GB of mods.
 
A gamenight with just ACE and ACRE is a really good idea that would show players the basics of EU3 without downloading much. 
 
 

"A modded and organized public server"
 
I don't think there's much more to it. It's still a public server, like EU1/2, but it has mods and people try to play in an organized manner.