Squad Size

[Reidy]

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. 

[Lost Bullet]

I too agree that the current role structure could be improved (seen to many _recent_ occasions where the SL disconnects (no matter the reason) or simply wasn't filled at all and the organization of the teams was close to negative.

 

But... that proposed structure simply would only change to the same as A1 TL would be called ASL and A2 TL would be called BSL.

I have another idea: Why not increase the size of the A1 team and eliminate the A TL roles? like:

Alpha Squad Lead
Alpha Medic

Alpha AR 1

Alpha AR 2

Alpha AR Assistant (yes, 1 assistant for both AR's)

Alpha Rifleman AT

Alpha Rifleman AT

Alpha Marksman

Alpha Engineer

 

In the latest server numbers usually A1 and A2 ins't filled totally so only in special ocasions Alpha would be full being a 8 + leader team.

That is much more manageable giving the option for ASL to internally promote AR's in the battle (same as the TL roles) but limiting the choice of lead roles to 1 role instead of 3 (ASL, TL A1, TL A2). 

 

 

[Ryko]

This is what will happen:

 

Alpha Squad Leader: (not assigned)

Alpha Medic: Player

Alpha AR 1: Player

Alpha AR 2: Player

Alpha AR Assistant: Player

Alpha Rifleman AT: Player

Alpha Rifleman AT: Player

Alpha Marksman: Player

Alpha Engineer: Player

[Lost Bullet]

But you agree that we currently have a problem with ASL slot right?

[Ryko]

Oh man, this has been a problem forever. The last time I tried to address it with the advisory screen (mission wouldn't load until an ASL was selected) there was quite the rebellion.

 

IMO, rearranging the squad composition is just rearranging the deck chairs.

[Reidy]

Without a doubt there is an issue with the Squad Lead Role as of now. People don't want to play it, that's an issue as its often required and what I am trying to do with this post is find a way to minimise what they have to do making the role as enjoyable as the others. As clearly as of right now people don't enjoy that role as much as the others.

 

IMO reducing the squad size / splitting the fire teams into two different squads would reduce what the SL has to do, trying to coordinate the two fire teams along with Vortex, MAT etc etc along with any infantry overflow to Bravo can be too painful and frustrating to enjoy.

[BenjaminHL]

I don't really think the rearranging will change anything. It will just be superficial and the same problems will continue. I am wondering why people don't take the SL slot?

I enjoy it from time to time as commanding and coordinating air is fun, but just the other day I was getting a lot complaints that my plan was bad and got everyone killed. (I was trying to take the southern cherno airfiled with just 5 guys so success was not in the cards). But the point I am trying to make is I think people are afraid of messing up, which shouldn't be the case. It is just a video game, be it one people take more seriously, but you don't have someone's life in your hands so just go for it. What do people have to lose? Also say what stops you from taking SL so we can maybe we can fix the problem.

 

IMO reducing the squad size / splitting the fire teams into two different squads would reduce what the SL has to do, trying to coordinate the two fire teams along with Vortex, MAT etc etc along with any infantry overflow to Bravo can be too painful and frustrating to enjoy. - Kieran

 

To address this I think it is the low-ish player count we have on the server. We simply never have enough to people create an appropriate and efficient command structure. And then the nevriousness of taking SL only get bigger with plat co.

 

 

-Ben 

[MessedUpSmiley]

Quote

Fill the primary slots before secondary/support.

• Fill Alpha before Bravo and Support squads.
• Fill Alpha Squadlead before secondary fireteam.
• One AT Squad is acceptable without a full Alpha, and is exempt from the above
• UAV Operator without a Platoon Commander requires the consent of the Alpha Squad Leader.
• Platoon Medic and FAC should only be used with a Platoon Commander online.
• No more than two Support squads without a Platoon Commander online
• Hammer and/or Torch should only be used if Bravo can be filled, and a Platoon Commander is online.
• Vortex 1 Pilot requires zero infantry. Vortex 1 CoPilot requires 8 infantry. Vortex 2 team requires 16 infantry.

Fixed ^

[Lost Bullet]

I've seen a lot of people disconnecting because they've been told that they can't play role X because of rule XY instead of re-slotting.

Inserting that rule won't force people to take to slot or do much for the enjoyment of playing that role

[Ryko]

A strong tenet of AWE (formerly EU3) has always been that you can't force someone to take a certain role. It's one of the main reasons my previous solution to the lack of command structure (refusing to start the mission without an ASL present) was shouted down.

 

Instituting a rule where ASL must be filled before additional squads can be filled violates this rule.  It will also be very difficult to enforce.

 

I'd like to find solutions that encourage and reward players for taking on command roles.  There are a few goodies that ASL has right now - access to artillery support, a wide array of equipment to choose from, latitude to change the mission parameters.  However, it doesn't seem to be enough, and I've run out of ideas.

 

The problem with running without a SL, or PC, is that plans don't get made, people run off and do their own thing, and it's generally a worse experience.

 

- R

[Copey]

1 hour ago, MessedUpSmiley said:

Fixed ^

I'm sorry but that is just something I could not get behind. At all.

It is effectively the same thing as what Ryko tried to do a while back. It didn't go well, and rather p***ed off a decent proportion of the playerbase. This is one of those 'learn from your mistakes' moments as I see it.

 

I very much agree with Ryko here that forcing people into roles will not work and more than likely further deter players.

Yes it is an issue, yes it has been an issue for a while, and yes I think it will continue to be an issue. This is just because of the playstyle and mentality required to be a SL these days. Sometimes it can be a nightmare, no two ways about putting that. This is what I see as a big factor in the issue at hand

[Colsta]

I believe I've said this before.

The problem with people not taking SL is not the team composition or the team size.

It's because the main SL - usually ASL, has to juggle every single damn team in the game - Alpha 1, 2, Vortex 1, 2, MAT, MMG, Bravo - when he should only have to do so with A1 and A2.

I don't play ASL because of that.

To fix this, with the current team composition, we need players in the Platoon Commander. How we can achieve that, I'm unsure of currently.

 

Kieran's idea is fine, but the problem I described above remains. And requires more micromanaging.

Bullet's idea puts a whole lot more micromanaging into the SL role, which I wholeheartedly disagree with.

I prefer SL to FTL because of less micromanaging. I'd rather that not change.

[BenjaminHL]

Well Like I said don't you think the problem is that we just don't have enough people on the effectively fill the command structure? I think if we had more people on and more people filling the slots the chain of command would work beautifully.

 

Also to adress Ryko the SL doesn't need anymore goodies he has enough fun stuff and power as it stand now. There shouldn't need to be anymore incentive.

[Amentes]

8 hours ago, Colsta said:

Spoiler

 

I believe I've said this before.

The problem with people not taking SL is not the team composition or the team size.

It's because the main SL - usually ASL, has to juggle every single damn team in the game - Alpha 1, 2, Vortex 1, 2, MAT, MMG, Bravo - when he should only have to do so with A1 and A2.

I don't play ASL because of that.

To fix this, with the current team composition, we need players in the Platoon Commander. How we can achieve that, I'm unsure of currently.

 

Kieran's idea is fine, but the problem I described above remains. And requires more micromanaging.

Bullet's idea puts a whole lot more micromanaging into the SL role, which I wholeheartedly disagree with.

I prefer SL to FTL because of less micromanaging. I'd rather that not change.

 

 

 

I''d add, because SL is often the ranking role, sometimes it forces people into playing bad cop. Most of the community are friendly with eachother, and few people are comfortable with doing what it can sometimes take to get things moving.

 

Some of that is down to how the playstyle is on #3, which isn't likely to change and maybe shouldn't change.

 

What can be done though, is to emphasize the TLs role in helping the SL get things moving.

 

All too often, the TL is simply "one of the boys" and has to be "herded in" by the SL just the same as any other. If TLs could take that responsibility, if the SL could tell his TLs what he needs them to bring, and trust that they will then handle that, I think SL would be much easier than it currently is.

[MessedUpSmiley]

8 hours ago, Copey said:

This is just because of the playstyle and mentality required to be a SL these days. 

This is the biggest issue EU#3 has right now and quite honestly no-one taking squadlead sums up well enough what is going on, even though it is supposed to be and has always been teamplay server; people are treating it as a third public server, but with mods and seem to have lost what EU#3 stood for, as long as they get to be tacticool they don't mind that they aren't the way EU#3 is meant to be played.

I agree with Benjamin on saying that if there were more people... , but I've come to the realisation that the mentality change, together with some other unnecessary or unwanted changes in the playerbase or mission composition has caused a lot of the older veteran players to quit and do sometihing else or totally leave the community.

To be honest, trying to change this without taking measures to the rules is going to to take more than changing around the squads, people who use EU#3 as just another casual server won't really be affected by changing such as these and in my opinion these players should just remove themselves, change their mentality or get removed.

#meutga

 

[SkullCollector]

Personally I think the squads are optimised the way they are, lots of wiggle room for each individual playstyle. Changing up their composition in any shape or form would likely disrupt the chemistry that most people expect, as we've seen with the 3x4 squads earlier this year. Last I looked, TL slots were no longer as big an issue as they were a while ago and quite fairly, neither are SL slots. When we have enough players for two squads, Bravo SL is very quickly taken and as evidenced by the ubiquity of support teams, people usually don't mind leading small elements.

 

ASL, though, is complicated.

Players only find ASL daunting because it has a bucket load of elements attached; BSL on the other hand has a pretty chill job most of the time, coordinating two TLs only.

In my opinion, we need to find a way to remind leaders of their respective responsibilities. I actually think TL is harder than SL because you have four guys to bitch at and watch out for, not just two on the radio as with SL (grossly oversimplified). Tactical situations also tend to change much more dramatically than strategic ones. And yet we have an all-right amount of TLs.

So again, I don't think it's the leadership that's off-putting. You just can't focus on your task at hand as ASL specifically.

 

If the solution is to disallow any and all support elements until PltCo is slotted, I'd love to try. We've got far too used to having a flying cab at our disposal whenever we wish and so dismiss convoys as antiquated. Then again, the past has shown that rules don't usually stop players from taking their favourite role anyway. And it would take away from the spirit of EU3 in my mind and severely limit flexibility.

[Vlk]

AWE is currently a Casual Milsim. yes/no?

 

Are the players having fun? Yes/no?

 

If yes, leave it as it is.

 

If no, Work trough the guidelines, moderators (myself included) needs to be harsher and lead by a better and more stricter example.

 

The question at hand is: Where do ahoy want to place AWE in regards of milsim/tacticalfun or Casual fun.  Right now its beetween tacfun and casfun.

 

 

[Reidy]

Even if you add rules etc, its not going to change the fact if people don't enjoy the role? If to fix the issue you are going to add further rules suggesting that Platoon Command and Alpha Squad Lead must be taken before MAT/HAT etc, this could cause many issues. This is a game at the end of the day and you'll do what you enjoy rather than a chore. Hence my attempt to reduce the task for ASL as this could very much be the reason that players don't enjoy it. As Skull said when the capacity for BSL is there it is quickly taken up, whats the main difference between ASL and BSL? You could pretty much argue that ASL is platoon command with the additional two fire teams. By my thinking the easiest most simple way to reduce this issue would be to get the Fire Teams more independent of ASL. Saying that "Why doesn't someone just go Platoon Command" isn't realistic as you just cannot force someone to play a commanding role they will just disconnect and the problem proceeds.

 

TL;DR How can we realistically reduce the workload of ASL and therefore make it a more appealing role?

[BenjaminHL]

agree with Benjamin on saying that if there were more people... , but I've come to the realisation that the mentality change, together with some other unnecessary or unwanted changes in the playerbase or mission composition has caused a lot of the older veteran players to quit and do sometihing else or totally leave the community -smiley (using my phone and don't know how to quote)

 

One of the ways I think we could change this is enforcing default loadouts and only being able to say change your gun, sights, and being able to get more supplies. One of the things I hear right now is "wait for me I am having arsenal problems" which isn't ryko's fault but points to the fact that people are more concerned about looking cool than playing the game. I know some people would be pissed they can't were M81 in the desert but ffs you will be ok. And for the second point of contention I feel like some people might think it is becoming milsim which is a argument but I feel a closer to milsim type style of play is what eu3 used to be (that last part is option as I obviously wasn't around). But I feel people could look past being tacticool for the sake of better team play. I would also stop the waistline of a lot of time.

-Ben 

[Reidy]

I'm not against removing the Arsenal and it would reduce the amount of time we spent in base, but would the squad lead having an ACOG for example be enough to get people into the role.

Additionally, the customisation that the Arsenal offers has always been something that comes with Eu#3 and I don't see that changing. 

[Ryko]

Here's a thought: remove the ASL position.

 

Put the medic directly into the 1 & 2 fire teams, making them six man squads. If high command is wanted / needed, player goes directly into platoon command.

 

It reflects how people are playing already, and also avoids the weirdness when a PC comes on when there is an ASL.

 

Could also then adapt the rule that if players want to take advanced roles like armor, additional vortex then there must be a PC, but I'm not a fan of that plus it's not easy to enforce.

[Reidy]

That's the same as my original suggestion is it not?

 

If we are still on the Topic of the actual Composition of the squad and how appealing the SL role is maybe a look at the British Section Layout;

 

Squad Lead

Medic

AR

AAR

TL

AR

AAR

Special Role (Marksman/RAT/Engineer)

 

In a sense the SL was the old TL however less people to be in charge. Similar to the squad layout we had on Benjamin's Game night which I felt was more organised. And like Ryko said, if people still want the big boss role the Platoon Commander, or in this case the Troop Commander, is still available. 

[PERO]

At first, I am sorry that I haven`t read all the post, to lazy right now.

 

Have we not tried this some time ago and players complained about the squad sizes being to big and ST Hud taking over to much screen?

[Reidy]

With a 12man squad I would agree, but if the sizes are reduced to 8 at max it wouldn't be too bad. Colour teams would be needed tho

[Lost Bullet]

2 hours ago, Kieran Collier said:

TL;DR How can we realistically reduce the workload of ASL and therefore make it a more appealing role?

 

I think this is the big question that needs a answer.
Rearranging the squads, removing/adding roles or rules won't change much of the question above: Why don't people take the leading role?

 

Even when there's less than 10 players on, TL is most of the times the last role to be filled.

I include myself in the "group of people" (no list available) that no longer chooses the leading role and my personal reason is mainly because people don't like others to tell them what to do and do whatever they want and its frustrating to try to lead or choosing the leading role having those past experiences. 

I've seen other people go past the same experiences while I was taking a lower role and I think there's mainly 2 problems with ASL role:

• People that appear that can't control the squads they have under them
• People that take ASL role as a Autorifleman and just get things done "alone" instead of giving commands to the TL's and so on

Is I said in my personal reasons, I fit in the first option and simply choose not to take it anymore.

I would like to hear other's opinions on this matter too.