Call Signs & Unit Composition

[SkullCollector]

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.

[ShadowAce11]

16 minutes ago, SkullCollector said:

MAT and HAT which very rarely are all filled, let alone used effectively

 

I'll have you know I've missed only 70% of my MAAWS shots. 

 

I'd be all for renaming squads and creating a sort of "engineering" unit tasked with equipment setup, as you said. I think that would be vastly more realistic. Pawn is a bit iffy given the role of a pawn in chess (knowing you're expendable on the field doesn't contribute much to effectiveness); perhaps change that to Womble squad. That way we at least think that we contribute something to the team.

 

Nonetheless, this sounds great. 

[Tutvys]

Knight or Phantom sounds cool, however I do not personally like FSG. Merging MAT and HAT into 1 group with 3 or max 5 Man squad (we never need 2 AT squads) is okay. And have seperate MMG from AT just remove 1 MMG squad. Also remove Charlie so ppl fill support after Bravo (if Bravo will ever get filled). Offtopic pls bring back raven for uav operator

[Colsta]

I agree with the callsign part regarding air units.

 

About the FSG... I'm not sure. As it is, the rules state an AT squad - and not any of the other support squads - can be taken before a full Alpha. How would that work if all the support squads were merged into one or two?

I can personally think of two solutions.

Either make two FSG groups, one specialized in general AT, the other in general MG.

Or make them general FSG squads and change the rules, leaving it to the CO's discretion. This solution raises a couple of issues however, namely:

- It's a bigger load on the CO - having to know what kind of weaponry the FSG squad is carrying, having to make sure they have what the Platoon needs, and not what they want to use

- It's a bigger load on the staff team - having to know -- not at a glance -- if the FSG squad is complying with the rules

 

 

Regarding the last post about Charlie - I say no. As you have stated, Bravo's rarely full. And it'd limit the maximum amount of players we can have by 12. I more often see multiple support squads being filled before bravo. Not a good idea for a nonexistent problem.

[Arkod]

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).

[Eagle-Eye]

I haven't been on EU3 yet (it's on the to-do list ) but I have a booklet lying around somewhere with call signs used in real life (valid around 2009 - 2010, iirc) for almost any type of aircraft or helicopter, for various air forces. If you want, I can try and find it for you?

 

EDIT: Found it. If anyone's interested, let me know what aircraft / heli are used on EU3, and I'll look up a few call signs.

Edited October 15, 2016 by Eagle-Eye

[SkullCollector]

If the FSGs were done precisely how I briefly described them, a rule change is definitely in order (and as far as I know has been talked about for a while already anyway). But the way I did describe them raises issues, which you've fairly pointed out. 

 

TL;DR#2: Have 2x FSG with 6 slots each, one FSG specialised in AT, the other general and flexible. Both FSG will have 2x3 teams with one guy on LR in touch with CMD and one guy listening to that guy.

 

As a rule of thumb, I'd have liked to see one FSG per full squad (that is, Alpha and Bravo), with each FSG consisting of two elements with SL on long-range (lieutenant), specialist (corporal), assistant (private); TL (sergeant), specialist (corporal), assistant (private). For the sake of clarity, one FSG could then be a general squad with access to statics and MMGs as well as AT, and the other with access to only AT but thus of all varieties, including TOWs. This would satisfy those who clearly want an AT role, but still leave a highly flexible support group as an option. If the AT specialist team is 6 strong, hell, I gladly take the firepower considering the amount of random tanks we've seen lately.

In the lobby this could be shown through a simple appendix after their call sign -- for the lack of better names, Cannonball (FSG - AT) & Rainmaker (FSG - General).

 

As for the separate map markers, I'm all for encouraging better communication, so as CMD I'd rather task a given FSG with a target or objective and have them coordinate themselves on the occasion they have all 6 slots filled. But that's just me and I realise that relies heavily on a decent leader.

 

Edit: In fact I think a group of six under one support SL would lighten the burden for CMD. The firepower of two teams is available, but he only has to task one guy with a decent amount of free rein.

 

Regarding the sniper team, I'm quite against it. I wouldn't mind giving the general FSG the option for high-power rifles, but make very, very clear that snipers are at the CO's disposal and a no will always be a no. This would otherwise either end up with just ditching them on a hill a klick away or tears because the platoon is on the move again.

Marksmen, on the other hand, I find very useful. They are meant to move with the team even into towns and take out priority targets with good accuracy, like statics, other marksmen or HVTs. It's the job of the team leader to get their arse in gear and move or actually leave them at a vantage point, but they are not and never will be hilltop snipers.

 

If any of the FSG do not comply with the rules, the CO has all the right to report or at least bollock them. But the rules we're talking about here are hypothetical at this point.

[S0zi0p4th]

Roughly we decided to change Talon to also Vortex due do how callsigns work in real live and the bitching off alot of our people 

 

Mainly in the way but i slotted Talon so i should fly CAS not the guy who took vortex and has flown transport the whole evening 

 

So roughly i would be against a split name off the Air class we could easly rename them but i see the same issues arise when we split them 

 

 

FSG groups has been on the table a long time to merge them so if people whouldnt mind it its not that hard to do 

[Tutvys]

2 different FSG teams  fine but not one merged.

[Amentes]

1 hour ago, S0zi0p4th said:

Roughly we decided to change Talon to also Vortex due do how callsigns work in real live and the bitching off alot of our people 

 

Mainly in the way but i slotted Talon so i should fly CAS not the guy who took vortex and has flown transport the whole evening 

 

So roughly i would be against a split name off the Air class we could easly rename them but i see the same issues arise when we split them 

 

 

FSG groups has been on the table a long time to merge them so if people whouldnt mind it its not that hard to do 

 

If both Air teams have an aggressive-sounding name, wouldn't that mitigate that issue?

 

And that aside, the rules are as clear as they've ever been, I made damn well sure of that. If people bitch and moan about it, doesn't that just mean we know who to ban?

[Phillipo Blendvigski]

Change the callsign for pilots to "Penguin" because 90% of the pilots doesnt know how to fly 

[Colsta]

4 minutes ago, Phillipo Blendvigski said:

Change the callsign for pilots to "Penguin" because 90% of the pilots doesnt know how to fly 

 

This is wrong in the case of EU#3. Most pilots can fly rather well.

[Phillipo Blendvigski]

9 minutes ago, Colsta said:

 

This is wrong in the case of EU#3. Most pilots can fly rather well.

Oh are we talking about the server with mods, my bad!, But still penguins for callsign on 1 and 2 i'll start a new #AhoyGoals #Penguin4Pilot

[Kingfisher]

Massively agree with the air asset renames.

 

Maybe have sibilance with related teams? ie:

 

Armor Units are: Torch and Tyrant

Air Units are: Vortex and Varmin (literally thinking random names up just to explain lol)

Support Units are: Phantom and Prowler etc etc etc

 

Just to make at a glance units are easier to identify.

[Copey]

*Personal Opinions*

Big, big agree with the air asset renaming. We could have a competition for best name or something. 

 

Yes to FSG, in theory I very much like the idea of folding MAT + HAT + MMG1 +MMG2 into 2 new FSG groups. The way in which these groups operate I have no preference, that would be in my mind whatever the community wants, but obviously within the rules of AWE.

[GhostDragon]

personally feel that at the time the movement from Talon to vortex was needed to remove the stigma that the talon username acquired with regards to the role that it played within the server. However I feel with the time that has passed  is sufficient to find another callsign (my personal favorites are, whiplash or phantom) could be added to the second as I feel that this does raise issues with communication, especially within high-intensity situations where clear communication is vital. 

 

With regards to the second half of this post, I feel that although a good idea it would need to be carefully implemented to the server to ensure that it is not over complicated and/or abused in any way. However, I do like the idea of giving units more flexibility within the roles that they are given.

[Eddie]

12 hours ago, SkullCollector said:

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.

 

+1 Adding a couple more guys to the units shouldn't take too much effort for team leads. Perhaps cap it to 6-7 individuals in a group including the team leader. This would help alleviate some chatter in radios as well or at least experiment with the overall group team play in an operation to make it more efficient.

 

As a side note that Zeus op that occurred stressed out the leaders capability. I know because ASL transferred some of his responsibilities to me as a team lead to coordinate all the involved units in the AO (x2 Alpha Units, x2 Vortex, x1 Torch etc.). Maybe we can do something to fix this? like ASL can make just the plans and tag along in the AO and oversee/coordinate friendly movements while the team leads just focus on their respective group movements etc. Don't get me wrong I had loads of fun but it was kind of at the point where it was more work than fun for team leads. Hopefully this will at least encourage some people to try out team leading and not the occasional regular who we see leading all the time.

 

TL;DR: Add more specialized units to the main groups (could experiment on this). Add/remove responsibilities for ASL or TL so that ASL don't get 80% of the work load.

 

-Ren

[Colsta]

1 hour ago, Eddie said:

Maybe we can do something to fix this? like ASL can make just the plans and tag along in the AO and oversee/coordinate friendly movements while the team leads just focus on their respective group movements etc.

Hopefully this will at least encourage some people to try out team leading and not the occasional regular who we see leading all the time.

 

Mostly, fully off-topic here, but:

 

That's kinda the idea behind ASL. The problem here is there's never enough players for a Platoon Commander, so that responsibility falls upon the main SL, who also has to act as the PlatCo. This is the main reason I don't play ASL - I want to coordinate two teams, but I end up having to coordinate two teams, air and ground support teams. It's insane. In fact, some of the best fun I've had on the server was playing BSL with a full Alpha and Bravo.

Great FTLs act just like you described, and they do alleviate this problem.

 

Regarding the second statement, @Ryko always stated he's open to suggestions regarding ideas to encourage people to take leading roles. I believe one of the many reasons players don't, is what you stated, and as evidenced by my own gripes.

 

As a final side note, I'd suggest maybe allowing the FAC slot to be open if there's a full Alpha, air and at least a support squad. Hopefully players would take that slot and help with the problem, as ASL would have to theoretically coordinate one or two less air teams.

Alternatively, add another role to the main SL squad, a communications soldier of sorts.

[BenjaminHL]

I feel like all the points have already been pretty eloquently laid out so far, but my too cents are that who the hell wouldn't want cool new and less confusing names; however, I do believe that all

support teams need to stay the same. Combining lets say MAT and HAT in my mind in inhibits the balence of the server (HAT Long, MAT short range respectively and more skill/ challenge with MAT) and it also doesn't really stay true to life, which I like to have the most of within a reasonable limit before we get to full milsim.

 

Game night plug:

 

[Amentes]

6 hours ago, Eddie said:

As a side note that Zeus op that occurred stressed out the leaders capability. I know because ASL transferred some of his responsibilities to me as a team lead to coordinate all the involved units in the AO (x2 Alpha Units, x2 Vortex, x1 Torch etc.). Maybe we can do something to fix this? like ASL can make just the plans and tag along in the AO and oversee/coordinate friendly movements while the team leads just focus on their respective group movements etc. Don't get me wrong I had loads of fun but it was kind of at the point where it was more work than fun for team leads. Hopefully this will at least encourage some people to try out team leading and not the occasional regular who we see leading all the time.

 

The fix for this problem would be putting somebody in the PlatCo slot

[Ryko]

Quote

ASL can make just the plans and tag along in the AO and oversee/coordinate friendly movements while the team leads just focus on their respective group movements etc.

 

I've said this on more than one occasion (and no doubt we need to have training sessions when it comes to the TL/SL/PC positions):  it should not be the role of the squad leader (and by extension, platoon commander) to micromanage the actions of the teams on the ground. A plan is put in place as strategy: the teams execute it tactically.

 

@SkullCollector was put into a hard position as Asl by having to coordinate two vortex units, torch as well as the infantry. @Origins did valiantly try to come online to take the PC role but was waylaid by technical issues. At some level you just have to come back to the plan, and when there are new assets someone has to step up and be traffic cop: but only to the extent of solving larger scale problems rather than telling alpha 1 exactly how to assault a compound.

 

There will always be a need for leadership, or nothing moves forward. And it can't always be skull or the usual suspects or people will get bored. The alternative is that we start running preconfigured missions where there is no operational choice, and I don't think people want that, either.

[GhostDragon]

21 hours ago, Eagle-Eye said:

I haven't been on EU3 yet (it's on the to-do list ) but I have a booklet lying around somewhere with call signs used in real life (valid around 2009 - 2010, iirc) for almost any type of aircraft or helicopter, for various air forces. If you want, I can try and find it for you?

 

EDIT: Found it. If anyone's interested, let me know what aircraft / heli are used on EU3, and I'll look up a few call signs.

 

 

As someone that is interested in different military groups, i would love to know about this. However getting back on topic quickly, The air support roles are multi-use so general callsigns would be of a grater interest, if you have any of those it would be nice to see them.

 

[SkullCollector]

As @Ryko and others pointed out, ASLing is hard and often amounts to more work than fun. You get everyone in Alpha on one ear, all the LR assets on the other and the odd local chatter in between, so you likely have no choice but to hang far back, actually walk away from everyone, and step up to CMD. cTab makes this easier, but you still have to rely on your TLs to relay information. This either requires staying on their short-wave, so you still receive sundry transmissions, or setting up an additional channel for your leads, which will see comms break down if they die and no one remembers to tune in on your additional. But that's Alpha and not to the point.

 

This is another plausible reason to combine support elements into FSGs: you halve the potential stress on support radio comms by shedding some workload onto FSG SL to coordinate his 2x3 teams with autonomy. If you normally had MAT + HAT, now you only have to deal with one 6-slot FSG AT. Nothing will stop them from splitting up for different approaches, so flexibility remains a given. If you had both FSGs half-filled, well, nothing changed, you still deal with, for example, an MMG and an AT team which retain all the power, but gain more versatility. FSG1 wants to ditch their MMG after an AO in favour of a Mk19? Ask CMD for the green light and have at it. If FSG - General gets to pick AT as well, even better. Most flexible squad ever, my goal is achieved.

 

Right now ASL has to adjust to whichever support team is online at the time anyway, so even if FSG didn't ask to bring a Mk19, neither did ASL ask current MMG to bring an M240B. They just joined the slot and did.

[Doncambino]

great idea !! 

 

i like phantom !!

 

[Guest Bartlett]

i do believe in the past one of the vortex was actually called talon???