Consolidating infantry squads?

[Ryko]

So since the dawn of time, for infantry squads, Gauntlet has always had two fire teams under a single Squad Leader/Medic unit.  I'm wondering if it still worth this segregation.

 

I propose that the ASL/A1/A2 teams be consolidated into a single group.  We've played like this in certain game nights, in what seems to be no harsh effect.  The advantage would be that all players in a group's squad would show up in their ShakTac hud, and in their map markers.  In turn I believe this would help squad cohesion.

 

I'm not sure if I can see a disadvantage, but if someone can think of one, I'd be interested to hear it.

 

Put your opinions in the poll and feel free to contribute!

 

Ryko

[JuX]

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

 

[SkullCollector]

The current squad organisation is honestly one of the things that made me stay on EU3.

 

Some other units and servers tend to cram 9 - 12 people in one Arma group and still have an SL and one or two TLs buried within. This, I learned, screws with comprehension and actually lowers cohesion. If someone JIPs your squad, they're just another name on your HUD and they have no way of knowing where their respective TL is. Players suddenly attach themselves to the other team leader mid-fight, too. Colours help, but only for a time; usually until the first few disconnect. Keeping track of it all is just a burden.

If the plan is to hand direct command of 9 players to the SL, I can promise you dysfunction.

 

With what we have, each fireteam knows exactly who it belongs to and its constituent members will have no issue identifying their buddies. As long as both team leaders do what they're supposed to do, a quick glance on the map will tell you exactly where the other team is, as the TL has their own marker, their members in effect cannot (should not) be far.

This way we have a bit of independence and autonomy for each fireteam, which, I think, makes for a more versatile, flexible hierarchy.

[Blue-958-]

@JuXMass confusion? Everything you claimed is simple about having two fireteams would be the same except you'd just have five extra markers on your map.

 

Sidenote: Would one of the FTL slots be switched to rifleman?

[S0zi0p4th]

10 minutes ago, Blue-958- said:

Sidenote: Would one of the FTL slots be switched to rifleman?

No because you still have 2 fire teams in a squad the Squad leader isnt leading a team himself 

 

Also yes Ryko you haven't been here since the beginning so you might not know  

 

We tried like Jux said before it ends in disorder  

the current system Works esp with disconnects and JIP people a soon as you change it it wont  work anymore and people dont know what is there front or back 

 

 

[Plant1ing]

Thinking,

 

- Moving as one group. We still have problems having a good readout of terrain, we will be nicer target for enemy to engage with vehicle and eliminating whole squad.

- Moving with strong cohesion is practically impossible sometimes. We'll need good SL all the time on the server.

- Having to segregate team every time we go to AO for flanking maneuvers. Doing it on the fly is awesome, as well as SL determination and given decisions. They need to be followed to the letter.

- No more tactical approach for AO. WW2 era.

- We are fighting most of the time small groups since lower player-base over week. Giving high amount of players making up a firing line can introduce a boring shooting range at pinned enemy. It will actually look like this: You can get instantly eliminated or pinned by enemy or you can instantly get advantage and overhelm the AO as "Zerging" squad. Player's depression will become more evident (playing for 2 hrs and not killing anything, happy triggers may occur).

- Scattering around and overpopulating radio communications. Everybody will have to report something. Yes, we still have problems with radio discipline. At least if A1 and A2 present players will preform it locally.

- When you as a squad of 10 focus on one target. While focused there's actually a "gaming term" (gaming experts help me with this one) (edit. Miksi Tunnel vision)which lowers your situational awareness. All 10 players focus on one thing because we are eager to kill first whatever is moving. We should not forget some players are not role-playing but looking this game as competitive mode.

- Poor 8 men squad behind our scopes, poor them. May Red light horizontal rain from two autoriflemen lights their path where darkness shall be upon them.

- Breaking the dynamic of game and less problems. Yes it sounds like less problems is awesome thing. And in real life it is, but not in this situation. The game will become more monotone, easier to complete, maybe less loses. It will remove some of problems which we actually want to create to make the game-play more interesting.

- Engaging enemy armor while he faces us all from front. Who will be that one guy who will actually run to sides to flank the tank? Yes we can argue about HAT/MAT. What if not present?

- ?Ambient AI spawns on linear locations? Ambient AI spawns near players.

- One Mastermind (SL) instead of 2 minds (TL)

 

+ -2 players having possibility picking 7.62 setups. I know it is introduced to encourage for players picking TL slots. Still, it doesn't happen. 

+ Introduction of enemy mortar teams is necessity. It is actually a MUST.

 

Still, I'd say give it a go and test for a week (Mo-Sun). Also test when there is higher player-base on Friday and Saturday as well as hosting one normal Gauntlet Gamenight. Just to see how it will work. I haven't seen it so I'd like to know for myself. I know it will come on your mind to host just one Gamenight with that formation. No, It should be tested for whole week since on Gamenights we tend to be more "Game-Faced On" and more casual over week.

The results will be even more promising if done without notifying players over forums giving them not a single clue. Not telling players why sudden change. Just to see real reaction of players. Then the  forum posts will actually answer the question by itself giving true result. Now we know what to expect and players can accommodate. Will it be in long run, that is the question.

 

Considering,

?Moving Marksman as part of SL assets and no longer as TL asset. Also rule populating first SL slot before marksman. Medic same rule apply as of now. This will actually break dynamic play which we don't want to happen.  But, maybe encourage of picking SL position and more cohesion to move as unit. A lot of players still don't know the difference between marksman and sniper. As of my understanding A2 is breaching team while A1 is suppression team if players start to argue for their need to be in nested position.

 

If only becuase of markers,

 

I don't like ShakTac HUD. IMO players will learn to have far better reading on terrain, environment and most importantly situational awareness. The learning curve is long but, results are astonishing.

I don't like having map markers. Showing me on a map doesn't help me in learning terrain and when one SL asks another what is his position. I'd die for a moment where you actually have to say: "ASL is 400meters West from Feres" over radio. It helps only if somebody decides to go lone wanderer play-style.

[Plant1ing]

4 hours ago, JuX said:

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.

 Please can you elaborate more on your opinion before "the dawn of time". I wasn't there so I'd like to know.

[Josh]

Please don't. We don't need to chop and change things every two weeks.

 

just leave things as they're.

 

dont fix something that doesn't need fixing. 

 

Work on improving other areas and adding better content. Instead of playing with things that don't need playing with.

 

the squads are the way they're to keep things localised to fire teams. That way within your squad ft 1,2 could operate independently of each other but within say a 1000m of each other. And that works perfectly.

[JuX]

22 hours ago, Plant1ing said:

 Please can you elaborate more on your opinion before "the dawn of time". I wasn't there so I'd like to know.

 

Ryko is basically suggesting to convert the squad system the way it used to be.

 

23 hours ago, Blue-958- said:

@JuXMass confusion? Everything you claimed is simple about having two fireteams would be the same except you'd just have five extra markers on your map.

 

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.

[Ryko]

Quote

 If you order fireteam to flank. Their position is not projected

on the map. Their position is unknown

I don't understand this. By putting the fire teams together, all the markers are on the map. As it stands right now asl only knows where his team leads are, through blufor tracking, not his entire team.

[Johnson]

I just want squad or fire-team markers on the map to be removed haha, I dont like them very much. Thats the only thought I have on Squad management, I dont mind either way for this argument. Ive seen both work equally well before however I feel that if its not broke dont fix it but I honestly dont mind.

[JuX]

2 hours ago, Ryko said:

 As it stands right now asl only knows where his team leads are, through blufor tracking, not his entire team.

 

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.

 

12 minutes ago, J0hnson said:

I just want squad or fire-team markers on the map to be removed haha, I dont like them very much. Thats the only thought I have on Squad management, I dont mind either way for this argument. Ive seen both work equally well before however I feel that if its not broke dont fix it but I honestly dont mind.

 

Suppose you have never played as Platoon commander

 

 

Anyway enough of this, like it was said. If it aint broke, dont fix it

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ryko]

So here's my problem with everything I've read so far: no one has suggested an alternative.  My prime concern here is how to make it easier for people to step into command roles, because this is not happening.

 

If people want to stick with the small teams, that's fine, but I'm actually considering something like instead of a 2-man + 5-man + 5-man team, go with 3 four-man teams (marines style instead of army style) in which we have ASL+3 (Medic, marksman and engineer) and 2x FTL+3 (AR, AR assistant and AT or Grenadier).  This way, there is less pressure to lead the squad as you have more dudes with you.

 

Otherwise, I'd like to hear suggestions on how to improve the situation... cos status quo is not working.

[Miksi]

34 minutes ago, Ryko said:

If people want to stick with the small teams, that's fine, but I'm actually considering something like instead of a 2-man + 5-man + 5-man team, go with 3 four-man teams (marines style instead of army style) in which we have ASL+3 (Medic, marksman and engineer) and 2x FTL+3 (AR, AR assistant and AT or Grenadier).  This way, there is less pressure to lead the squad as you have more dudes with you.

 

I feel like this needs to be tested before we can give a full opinion. From my point of view this would make even the team lead position more attractive as it means less constant micromanaging unlike with 5-man fireteams.   

[Vlk]

Hmmm.. I'm positive for set suggested marine setup. I think the current asl+medic setup is somewhat stupid. But as already mentioned, IF it works, don't fix it. It all comes down to... Does it work with the current player base + ppl taking leading roles?

Sent from my iPhone using a phone app that is really irritating because it constantly advertises itself.

[Colsta]

I wouldn't mind testing the marine style teams actually.

Sent from my glorious Android.

[JuX]

11 hours ago, Ryko said:

So here's my problem with everything I've read so far: no one has suggested an alternative.  My prime concern here is how to make it easier for people to step into command roles, because this is not happening.

 

If people want to stick with the small teams, that's fine, but I'm actually considering something like instead of a 2-man + 5-man + 5-man team, go with 3 four-man teams (marines style instead of army style) in which we have ASL+3 (Medic, marksman and engineer) and 2x FTL+3 (AR, AR assistant and AT or Grenadier).  This way, there is less pressure to lead the squad as you have more dudes with you.

 

Otherwise, I'd like to hear suggestions on how to improve the situation... cos status quo is not working.

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

[SkullCollector]

Of course I'm all for trying out new things, and I'll be the last to object to testing it in the next Gauntlet release. Here is a list of stuff that I just love about the current system, though. Feel free to debate.

 

• five-man fireteams; FTLs can assign two buddy teams of two and still remain independent (as "white") to delegate -- especially useful for when there's no SL/CMD and an FTL has to orchestrate Vortex, MAT, Torch, etc. -- and can also easily fill in for a dead / disconnected buddy
• two-man SL element; as I understand it, any SL has enough strategic responsibilities to warrant staying reasonably far away from bullets and have the medic shift between teams; taking away the marksman from team 1 kinda deflates it for me as I've always seen it as a nice tactical trump card, either to use their AR and marksman as fire support or to deal with priority targets from a forward position
• two-team squads; as much as I can see the benefit of flexibility with three four-man teams, I'd much prefer extra players in a different squad entirely -- we might lose tactical versatility but gain a strategic one (also leaving SL with less to think about, since 2 < 3, making it easier to get into the position)
• again, five-man fireteams; the team as a whole packs more of a punch with more rifles and an increased capacity for AT launchers (theoretically FTL + rifleman + marksman / grenadier are light enough, seen and done that quite often) -- I personally believe from experience that this increases the fun for players as they can accomplish more as a singular unit as opposed to having to rely on the parallel team (this is badly worded, I hope you catch my drift)

 

Any other point I could come up with is biased because who likes change, so I won't write them down.

 

From my personal and very, very novice experience (have you seen the clusterfucks I fabricate as SL?), there are so few leaders because we often have to delegate a tonne of things at once. Without CMD but with a full Alpha there's usually still MAT/HAT and Vortex, which is literally three times as many elements as any SL should have to bear. It's just too daunting. Of course it can be done, we have plenty of evidence, but I attribute that to the experience of those who can do it.

Stepping up from FTL to SL is a huge leap, which is where I can actually see a benefit of this idea: the SL can still fight. With an actual rifle. Right now the SL can be a bit detached from the experience, thus with some combat roles next to them they might see some more action.

 

And yes, I have seen a fair amount of flak towards bad-ish SLs. That's unlikely to change with restructuring, but I doubt it's substantial enough for people not to take up the role.

[Amentes]

Marine fireteam setup would be my preference.

 

Even numbers facilitate buddy teams better, which can hopefully translate into better understanding of the responsibilities of a buddy.

 

Marksmen can be assigned under SL to better allow him to provide support from the rear, as is his function.

 

Infantry squads will end up with an Engineer, while retaining Grenadier options in TeamLead slots, and still being twelve man strong.

 

Number of AT carried would be identical, hopefully Alpha members wouldn't feel the need to lug around demo charges anymore due to Engineer.

 

 

[Ryko]

Yes, my post and poll contradicts itself, because ideas are allowed to change over time.

[Colsta]

I'm really digging the whole idea of marine-style teams. I don't like change either, but it'd likely make playing Gauntlet (close to) a whole new experience for myself and others.

 

Regarding the poll itself, I voted no. I really dislike the whole single unit squad system vanilla ArmA seems to use. It seems like a giant cluster.

[JuX]

2 hours ago, Ryko said:

ideas are allowed to change over time.

 

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

[Ryko]

Yes, more training nights about squad leading would always be a good thing.  We have had them in the past.  They do not necessarily result in people deciding to take the SL position, because of (reasons).

 

So, I'm trying to find ways to incentivize people moving into that position.  I haven't heard much else in this thread along those lines, and on that basis (and, frankly, some encouragement from other folks both in this thread and in-game) Gauntlet 45D will change up the fire teams along these lines.  It might not make a difference.  But I don't think it will impact negatively, either.

 

- R

[SkullCollector]

Looking forward to seeing how this pans out. 

[GhostDragon]

me too, personally i would be up for testing this and other solutions (such as merging all alpha into one squad and letting the sl split the teams up) 

This works because the SL is one ftl and takes one team and the other is a second in command and takes the other. This works well because the 2ic can have a lr radio too and can hear communications that the sl might miss, meaning his fireteam can react and update the ic when he is in a position to listen (e.g firefight ends) this also means that if someone wants to lead a squad then they can go into a 2 ic role and have access to the long range comms and learn from the way that the more experienced ic works.

 

However this does not always work but i would be up for helping trial any changes that are proposed