Squad sizes

[BACONMOP]

I was wondering what the players wanted with the squad sizes. As both ways have pros and cons. I prefer having the squads split into fireteams as it makes it easier to command the fireteams.

 

[MessedUpSmiley]

Any option to make it so that the fireteams are all on the same frequency as SQL?

[DakimDragco]

i like the seperate fire teams too, but like smilley said, we do need to have them on the same shortwave as SL and medic for their unit. My current pro and con are

 

Seperate Fireteams Pro's:

• Easier to command
• Easier to setup (ie: already heave a mmg, AT, etc in each FireTeam)

Seperate Fireteams Con's:

• More difficult for SL to keep track of all units. (Diamond icons on friendly)
• Frequenties need to be sorted out more, since each fireteam has a different standard SW freq.

I still vote for separate fireteams though, but i like having HAT, MMG and AAT elements for specialized roles, instead of adding them to Alpha and Bravo elements like earlier versions of Cherna.

[S0zi0p4th]

I like the 1 suad way better / easier for my way off view  just how i used to it 

 

Also i would want to see MMG HAT AAT  combined in to 2 separate squad's.

Instead of the 5 or 6 we now have and just renamed to heavy fire support or so.

Having 6  3man team's with all a own leader is a hassle on the radio 

[DakimDragco]

Have to agree on the HAT/MMG/AAT point of soziopath, aldo the rename is not needed. AAT is a undesired slot at this time, as most the time they have nothing to shoot (or atleast way less then say HAT. Dont increase the amount of enemy air though )

 

Might change it to say:

 

HAT

• SL
• Missile Spec
• Missile Spec
• AA Spec
• Assistant Missile Spec

MMG

• SL
• Autorifleman MMG
• Assistant Autorifleman

And just delete HAT2, AAT, and MMG2 as we rarely (like never) need 2 of those more then we need Alpha and Bravo.

[Gurlanin]

Personally I prefer the one squad formation. That way, the squad leader can split up and spread out his fireteams however he wants them and still be able to see everyone on the map.

[DnL]

I prefer the Panthera layout aswell, makes things easier in the end. Of course squadlead needs a bit longer on mission start, but after that players that drop for example can bereplaced easier by switching players in the fireteam until someone else fills up that slot.

[PERO]

I vote as Panthera has is setup. As someone already mentioned, it`s more UI friendly (sthud wise). Firetimes can be me randomly, according to the mission plan or squad role in it.

[Eggmuffin]

Having each squad divided into two fire teams is absolutely essential. Regardless of how this is achieved, it is the only way that allows any kind of flexibility. Without that, CMD might as well take direct control.

 

I absolutely prefer the old way, despite the frequency-issue you bring up, because it wasn't an issue. At all. If anything, it was a good way to introduce new players to the server. "This shit is more complex", it would say. "Pay attention."

It also introduces to them in a way that cannot possibly be misunderstood, the fact that they will never be on comms with everyone at the same time.

I don't think it's a problem, except for the LR switching to a default at respawn, but that's a very minor issue.

 

 

The old way to organize a squad also allows for two team leaders, instead of forcing the squad leader to wade into bullets. The squad leader manages the teams, he does not take point. But that's exactly what we frequently now see! Without two definite team leaders, squad cohesion suffers, and combat effectiveness likewise. 

 

One additional point: Fire teams could stand to be slightly bigger. A five-man fire team is much more flexible and resilient than the now standard four-man fire teams, it's a tiny fix, with big consequences. I know the real US army uses two teams of four men, but we're not professionals here. This is a PC game, and we won't operate like our lives are at risk.