Squad Size

[Vlk]

Honestly just advertise the server outside of AhoyWorld. As it stands, and as far as I can tell, we get EU3 players trickling in from I&A by pure chance of them looking at the forums. If we instead had a clear-cut portfolio for AWE and presented it publicly, we could find a reasonably steady supply of new players, some of which are bound to be competent leaders and willing to take on the task of CMD.

I know a number of players who dislike clans and rigid communities with duties and expectations. They would rather join a decent public server with structure, pretty much precisely like EU3; most other modded servers are run on weekly events only. A 24/7 modded tacsim server is such a huge selling point, I can't believe we aren't using it to our advantage. Add frequent gamenights and a non-bloated modpack (the content of which most players have or know about already) and it won't be any trouble to sell the premise.

 

With some elbow grease and smooth-talking PR, this is easy. EU3 player count is anaemic at best compared to what it could be.

We are currently working on this on Reddit forums etc, but it's in the starting pit. Also tryin to be more active on YouTube channel. But I totally agree with u

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

[JuX]

4 hours ago, S0zi0p4th said:

Still every one is trying to change the Squad's 

But reading every one's post the Squads arent the issue ther setup is fine 

 

What is the issue is that peeple dont like to act as leader for multiple teams

 

Iff we whould use Kieran's prosposed setup we still whould have the same issue Alfa squad lead whould still need to control bravo and vortex mat/hat 

TBH and other composition whould mean the same there has to be a chain off command/some one who takes the final call's

 

This always been a thing and with lower people it often falls to the squadleader instead off the plt commander 

 

For me there is no way we can change it on AWE because the only change you possible could do is let every squad sort itself out unless we got a plt commander and i dont think we whould want that to happen 

 

Could be that squad leaders should instead collaborate if platoon commanding is the problem.

Ofc its always best to have someone with authority over the operations, but if it's intimidating then people should collaborate.

 

Rather then Alpha leader taking over chain-of-command. Main squads should collaborate and communicate with one another.

Other assets such as armor and aerial units should become support assets and coordinate with the main squad leaders.

 

 

[Eagle-Eye]

A few assumptions in this reply, but reading through this topic, I understand the current theoretical chain of command is like this:

Cannon fodder < Fire Team < Squad < Platoon Command

 

Cannon fodder just follows orders given by 1 Fire Team Leader. One Squad Leader controls 2 FTL. Platoon Command directs however many SL there are plus the "special purpose teams" (pilots, FSG, AT, ...).

 

In practice, however, it happens quite often that Alpha Squad Leader needs to control Bravo Squad plus the SPTs, effectively becoming Platoon Command. As such, isn't the simplest solution that once Alpha is full, Bravo Squad Leader is the first that needs to be filled, if necessary, by someone transferring from Alpha, or by someone in another Bravo squad slot taking up field command until the Squad Leader arrives on scene? It would seem odd to me that an entire squad could operate without command, so having their own leader should be a PRIO 1 necessity. Also, if Alpha Squad Leader at one point becomes saturated, he has Bravo Squad Leader to fall back upon and delegate responsibilities to.

 

 

Also, assuming the above is correct, I would think the SPTs are in fact on the same level as squads, supervised by Platoon Command? In such a case, SPTs wouldn't need so much controlling (top-down = "you go there") as they require coordination (sideways = "request you go there") with other squads. In theory anyway, if assistance from the SPTs is required, a Squad Leader should only have to ask "request X at location Y", and the SPT should be able to continue on their own from there. Of course, the Squad Leader making the request could add extra vital information (at time Z, caution 1, suggest you avoid 2, ...) but it's in no way necessary.

 

 

Could be wrong, but despite being a more tactical server, there doesn't appear to be much live training, aside from bringing what you know and learning as you go. (unfortunately, this is often the best way to learn things the bad way)

Maybe that's also part of why it's hard to command a larger team? I'd put emphasis especially on radio discipline, since it is something that usually doesn't come naturally and needs to be taught, while saturated or stepped-on comms is often the main reason why commanders start losing situational awareness, and a FUBAR develops.

 

That being said, as it's vital in any two-way radio communication that you keep the frequency clear, chatter is filled with specific phraseology to convey as much information in as short a time as possible, but if you don't know the lingo, it's all just a bunch of words thrown at you. I'm not sure if brevity is being used on AWE, but so far, I haven't been able to find an actual brevity guide (if there is one, could you please send me a link?). In my opinion, such a manual could be very useful, especially for new guys, and if there is none available already, I'd vote for creating one.

 

For example, instead of "I've got eyes on an enemy T-72 driving towards us, bearing 304, distance now 853 meters" (quote similar to what I often see or hear on public servers), you could just say "tally tank, northwest, far, hot". It's a bit less precise, but it gets everyone looking in the right direction and assessing the situation much faster, and if necessary, you can still request/give more precise information later.

[Grezvany13]

A simple structure which I usually followed while building missions (back in ArmA 2) was the "rule of two's", which in short means; no leading position should ever leading more than 2 people/groups under him/her. And every person works in a pair (buddy system).

 

Following this rule (or guideline) it's relatively easy to create squads:

 

- Squad Leader (Alpha SL)

-- Squad Medic (Alpha Med)

- Fire Team Leader (Alpha 1 FTL)

-- Rifleman (Alpha 1 Rfl) - optional Grenadier/Marksman/etc.

-- Autorifleman (Alpha 1 AR)

-- Assistent Autorifleman (Alpha 1 AAR)

- Fire Team Leader (Alpha 2 FTL)

-- Rifleman (Alpha 2 Rfl) - optional Grenadier/Marksman/etc.

-- Rifleman AT (Alpha 2 AT)

-- Rifleman Assistent AT (Alpha 2 AAT)

 

For the Platoon Command the structure is a bit different, however still follows the same rule:

 

- Platoon Commander (PltCo)

-- Platoon Medic (PltMed)

-- Platoon Sergeant (PltSgt)

-- Rifleman / FAC (PltRfl / PltFAC)

 

Here the PltCo and PltSgt share the leading role towards the squads (infantry and cavalry), and if air assets are used, the FAC will manage all air squads/teams.

 

 

Although it looks like it adds even more leading roles, it actually makes it easier to lead. Since it will never happen that a single person has to lead more than 2 people/groups, even unexperienced players will be able take a leading role. It also allows to split the leading role with your buddy (eg. ASL and AM, or A2FTL and A2R), or to simply give room for own initiative for the roles below you.

 

The order of filling the roles based on this structure should be:

1. Alpha 1 FTL

2. Alpha 1 Rfl

3. Alpha 1 AR

4. Alpha 1 AAR

5. Alpha SL

6. Alpha Med

7. Alpha 1 FTL

8. Alpha 1 Rfl

9. Alpha 1 AR

10. Alpha 1 AAR

11-20 ... same order for Bravo Squad

21. PltCo

22. PltMed

23. PltSgt

24. PltRfl

 

Instead of filling Bravo Squad directly, specialized squads could be filled first (cavalry and/or air) depending on the mission.

 

 

Again; this structure is based on 1) the buddy system, where every person has a buddy to work with, and 2) no leading role will have to give orders to more than 2 people/groups under him (with exception of Platoon Command, although here the tasks can be shared more easily).

[Colsta]

@Grezvany13

That looks a lot like the Marines structure, which we had on the server before and didn't work.

[Amentes]

People didn't like it. Doesn't mean it couldn't have worked if it'd been allowed to stay around for more than a month

[JuX]

If you splinter squads in to more fireteams you effectively increase workload for squad leaders and squad communication.

 

There is no advantage in splintering squads in to 3 or more fireteams. You might think it gives more tactical maneuvering, but it can easily turn in to a logistical nightmare as wounded start to pile up across the area and a single casualty can effectively cripple a small fireteam. Having strong fireteams and other squads give much more effective and reliable tactical maneuvering.

 

You do not need a system to enforce squads to play in such splintered manner, but fireteam leaders capable of pushing their limits to splinter themselves using the buddy system. Designating them with simple code names (remembering player names and their roles can easily mix up).

[Minipily]

Perhaps it should probably just be known that there was never ever anything wrong with squad structure in the first place if i'm honest. Sure you could change it around a bit if you like but there's not much point in changing something that just works.

 

Whether it be Patrol Ops' single squad elements or Gauntlet's ASL/A1/A2, each work perfectly fine. At the end of the day, players are the thing that makes it work. As they say, there is no deadlier weapon than a soldier and his rifle.

 

Perhaps if the players just play as a team, study their tactics and learn together instead of measuring dicks then ya'll be fine.

 

I dunno, do as you guys please, just remember that cohesion and camaraderie come before changing an entire squad structure because "add marksman pls".

[kman]

Personaly, I find biggest problems with ASL to be comms overload.

If ASL would only hear his FTLs on short range and Vortex+MAT on long range it would be much better.

 

I have seen some ASL to do this by requesting FTLs to join secondary channel - usually 50.1

The problem is, the procedure to do this with radio isn't very user friendly and it would have to be repeated by every FTL joining game.

 

Since default frequencies are assigned to radio by script, would it be possible to make Alfa FTLs automaticaly get secondary 50.1 and Bravo FTLs 51.1 presets?

 

Is it possible to give different radio presets depending to where did person slotted to?

 

 

 

 

[Minipily]

6 minutes ago, kman said:

Since default frequencies are assigned to radio by script, would it be possible to make Alfa FTLs automaticaly get secondary 50.1 and Bravo FTLs 51.1 presets?

 

Is it possible to give different radio presets depending to where did person slotted to?

 

Dunno if this is still done on EU3 but it would actually be best not to automate TFAR radio frequencies, it's a lot of hassle to deal with and can cause some annoying bugs if you want to change radio frequencies for whatever reason, all this just to save about 5 seconds.

 

Also I'm surprised people are complaining about the workload on ASL, it really isn't that hard to deal with. Hell, if you find it that hard then perhaps SL'ing wouldn't be for you.

 

Of course having a Platoon Leader on would be nice to help calm comms but generally having enough players for that role to be of any significance is pretty optimistic.

 

If you want my 2 cents which I can guess 90% of people won't because opinions are just assholes, scrap radio freq presets. The cons outweigh the pros, just leave the freqs you want on the map for everyone to see and ya'll be fine. Hell, what we did back in 2014 on Patrol Op's was just use the frequencies that we spawned in with on the map, the frequencies you spawn with is what the server has randomized and forced, so if you die and respawn you will always have that frequency.

[Ryko]

This topic keeps going around in circles, nicely describing why the ASL position is difficult.  I think we can safely summarize as follows:

 

1) There is no huge groundswell of interest when it comes to changing the squad composition: people are happy enough with the current layout.

2) No one has any great ideas about how to incentivize people taking the ASL position, and that's fine.

 

I think TFAR is working well as it is, I don't think I'm interested in going further with alternate channel presets (I think that can get messy). If you know how to use the alternate channels they're extremely useful, and that's something that's definitely worth coordinating before heading out into the field.

 

Actually, coordinating all comms is a really useful thing before heading out into an op, as it identifies people who have had their radio gobbled up by the arsenal.

 

- R