Call Signs & Unit Composition

[Vlk]

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

It was. Vortex transport talon cas

[SkullCollector]

18 hours ago, Vlk said:

It was. Vortex transport talon cas

 

This is wrong and that's the reason it was done away with. It wasn't actually like that, but because Talon sounded CAS-y, people joined it for the CAS and wanted it to be CAS only.

I hope we've matured enough to have different call signs again, even supposedly aggressive ones.

 

---

 

Is there anything to be added RE: FSG? I tried to incorporate some feedback and would like an opinion on the last update.

[Colsta]

1 hour ago, Vlk said:

It was. Vortex transport talon cas

 

That's so wrong. They were just callsigns.

Basically what @SkullCollector said.

[Amentes]

I'd like the idea of rolling the supports into FSG, but I'd say make it 5-man teams.

 

Seems to me that would fit well, as it simply takes the same roles and trims off the extra Lead.

[Ryko]

What I want to avoid is another clear team fiasco. Fsg would have all the big toys in one group, so why wouldn't you take a slot there instead of filling up alpha?

 

I'm not sure of the answer here, but I'm also wondering if it isn't worth looking at just opening up the restrictions against mmgs and heavy at for regular infantry. Allow the autorifleman to also take the mmg, and maybe the rifleman to take the maaws/smaw.

 

Just a thought, that I'm not even sold on. But going this way would certainly simplify things on the mission end.

[Amentes]

No doubt it would require some composure on the part of the players.

 

That said, I wouldn't wanna see the heavy assets introduced into the primary infantry groups.

 

The way I see it, MAT/HAT/MMG and a possible future Fire Support Group should be hanging back, moving up behind the regular infantry, ready to move up with AT or set up a base of fire if required. Lobbing HE at clusters of infantry is just a little icing on top, but is more a gimmick than a primary feature.

 

One problem we currently have with RHS is how powerful the AT4 is, which means the AT teams are exclusively range-extenders, as the killing power of the dedicated AT assets isn't required to combat even the heaviest armor the enemy is able to throw our way. I'd still love to see people get into a situation that an AT4 simply can't get them out of.

 

 

[Vlk]

I understand we are going for a us military model which has pre defined roles on almost anything with the restrictions along it. But I'm positive to open up for the alpha bravo to have access to 1hmg and pherhaps javelin/maws. Back in the day, I was a medic, with an mm rifle(psg 1)and an mg3 in addition to the standard issued hk 416-c/n.We operated in smaller units though and it was necessary to cross combine in order to have supreme firepower over taliban, or whoever they claimed to be. Maybe not an issue in eu3 though. Just putting it out there

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

[GhostDragon]

Maybe have it so that A2 lmg is switched to a mmg/lmg and b2 at is switched to a mat/lmg meaning those only get the option and stops everyone thinking they are rambo

Sent from my Nexus 6 using a phone app that is really irritating because it constantly advertises itself.

[SkullCollector]

11 hours ago, Ryko said:

What I want to avoid is another clear team fiasco. Fsg would have all the big toys in one group, so why wouldn't you take a slot there instead of filling up alpha?

 

For the same reason we technically shouldn't have any support teams before Alpha is full, except MAT: rules. They work ... okay, so adjusting them to replace, "MAT is okay" with, "half FSG AT is okay" shouldn't be too hard. (Somebody make that more elaborate.)

I wasn't around for the clear team, but it's already well-established that support teams hang back. In my mind, 'Fire Support' only underlines their role on the battlefield, just like Talon suggested CAS for some players.

 

As for heavy weapons in primary squads, I'm not sold either. Our FTs are too mobile by nature.

With an MMG you decrease the potential volume of fire in a team and increase weight substantially compared to an M249 buddy team, and with a SMAW / MAAWS you slow the whole team down, because somebody has to carry extra rounds in addition to the AR load per FT. As @Amentes said, AT4s are more than enough and removing the one limiting factor that is reusability would make things too easy.

[Colsta]

I really dislike the idea of more specialized weapons being used by regular infantry.

If we're going ahead with a FSG group, I'd say make one specialized in AT, and the other general, like Skull suggested himself.

 

The rule would still be the same, as it refers to general AT squads.

[Ryko]

@SkullCollector and @Colsta I agree with your comments and sentiments. Some things to consider:

 

1. Infantry teams are not shy about dealing with armor on their own. Played mat the other day, didn't kill a single unit as alpha at4s did all the heavy lifting. The only time an infantry ten actually needs support is when an MBT comes rolling in, and then even then an at4 canbe enough.

2. Mmg is rarely used thus those assets rarely come into play, and when they are, are frequently assigned directly to alpha anyway. I'd day if the ar was allowed to tote an mmg then it would actually give the assistant a meaningful job.

3. The concept filling up alpha first is not well understood and not well carried out. People see the numbers, jump into the slot they want, and then wait for someone else to fill up alpha.

4. Eu3 was never really intended to be an accurate military simulation- that's why the equipment selection is country-agnostic. Players were always supposed to govern themselves accordingly to take the appropriate gear.

 

I'm not completely sold on this idea, either - but u would like to explore it. Right now the specialized support teams aren't working as intended, and I am not sure that consolidating them to 1 fsg group will actually solve the problem.

[Colsta]

@Ryko
So you're suggesting that - say - a Rifleman be allowed a MAAWS, and an Autorifleman be allowed a MMG?

I'm not sure how I feel about that.

 

I do agree support teams can be meaningless sometimes, but I don't feel the solution you're suggesting to be the best. I cannot think of any other at the moment except a rather drastic one - limiting basic AT to be rifleman only, and changing the assistant slots into rifleman. That'd give a full squad 4 AT to play with, while hopefully keeping support teams useful. Because let's face it - an AR never really needs an assistant. I can carry two boxes of 200 round ammo without a backpack, and keep under 25kg. With a backpack I can comfortably take around 2-3 extras while hovering around 30. You really don't need more than that. Besides I really hate the term 'ammo bitch' a lot of people love to employ.

 

MMG is one of those teams that only get used when we have a lot of people around, which sadly isn't the case more often than not. The "solution" I suggested wouldn't help with that.

 

Also it's AWE, not EU3! Gee.

[Vlk]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but testing out "more firepower to a+b" won't make it permanent? If it ain't working out somehow (I can't see why at this time other than if 15+ players are online and support teams feels like a cosolidation prize) we can swap it back.

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

[Arkod]

Considering how powerful AT4 are, we could just remove MAT all together and leave HAT as the only support AT team. The difference between MAT and a rifleman with an AT4 is not that big, just slight increase on distance, HAT on the other hand has lock on capabilities, thermals and greatly increased range.

 

I wouldn't mind removing AAR and adding a 2nd Rifleman with an AT4 as @Colsta suggested. For the same reasons: 1) it's a pretty useless role 2) I really don't like hearing "ammo bitch" every time there's an AAR present...

 

And since we mentioned fiream mobility, I'm going to ask again to replace marksman with another speciality role like grenadier. You can add a marksman to SL team.

 

[SkullCollector]

1 hour ago, Arkod said:

And since we mentioned fiream mobility, I'm going to ask again to replace marksman with another speciality role like grenadier. You can add a marksman to SL team.

 

If they sit, they're shit.

Moving them to SL won't change that and I'm fairly confident it won't work against the issue of wanna-be squad-level snipers. With SL it will put pressure on them to coordinate another rifleman, especially with ASL considering the current workload. They will inevitably be attached to one of the teams, and that's that. 

I'd rather groom everyone out of their habit, as TL, to leave the marksmen behind or, as marksmen, to actually want to stay behind. There's a time and place for everything, but a marksman is not a sniper.

 

I also disagree with the AAR's uselessness. With 600 rounds on me as AR in an intense AO, I go through all or most of my boxes quite regularly from suppression alone.

[Amentes]

It's pretty common for me to need the rounds from the AAR as well, but I'd also have no real issue carrying that ammo myself.

[Eagle-Eye]

Did some digging and came up with the following list of military aviation callsigns, if anyone's interested.

 

Some remarks first:

- I wrote down all types and roles available in ArmA I could think of. Because of this, it's an extensive list, probably longer than it should be already. If I forgot something, please let me know, so I can look it up and add it to the list.

 

- Callsigns are realistic for the role and aircraft type (except for drones) though they may not always have been used by the indicated aircraft example.

- - Small drones generally don't have their own callsigns, as far as I could find, since they are usually deployed in the field and you would address the unit operating them. Also, some drones available in ArmA are not yet operational in real life. Nevertheless, I've given different callsigns (code words may probably be a better term) based on reconnaissance aircraft callsigns to all drones, to better indicate what is requested by or assisting players in the AO, without giving that information away over radios.

 

- Though there is no logic behind the choice of letter, I tried to make it a tiny bit easier to remember the callsigns by having each role start with a different one. Doesn't mean you can't mix them up, of course.

 

Now, for the list:

 

 

 

Cheers,

Eagle-Eye

[Kingfisher]

I object to that Huron callsign lol

[Lost Bullet]

More off-topic, but the ASL vs radio chatter really interests me.

 

In busy hours what usually happens is Alpha is full + 1 support (MAT usually) + 1 Vortex, but during the mission Bravo starts to fill up + another Vortex + others and its not ease to be under fire and keep alpha moving on the ground and re-plan what the other squad/teams will do.

 

And that's where the additional channel radios come handy (if everything is already preset) and since we can have preset radio channels, why not have:

Default Alpha: 50

Default Alpha adicional: 51 (ASL + team leaders will have that preset in their 152's), even with only Alpha team full this can get handy.

When things get messy in the radios, ASL can simply order TL to start using the adicional 51 freq and ASL will switch to another channel (e.g. command)

 

That way if TL are out of contact, ASL can switch back to 50 and still be able to command the squad.

 

[Ryko]

Lost, it's an interesting topic, and I'd suggest you create a separate one for it rather than do it here.

 

I'd advise 50.1 rather than 51, as 51 is the default Bravo channel.