What a "Squad" Should be ?

[UK_Force]

There seems to be a lot of interesting threads on this - so I thought it best to consolidate the ideas on here.

I agree with most of this - to add to the "realism" factor.

My thoughts:

1. You have to Join a Squad - otherwise you can only spawn in as Assault
2. Squads should be Max 8 Men
3. Each squad must have the following as a Maximum:

a. Squad Leader - Spec Ops x 1
b. Assault x 3
c. Medic x 1
d. Engineer x 1
e. AT x 1
f. Support x 1

There should also be a dedicated (Alpha Squad), purely for Snipers, to work as a Team asset, ideal to set up a sniper matrix.

a. Squad Leader - Sniper x 1
b. Snipers x 6
c. Support x 1 (for resupply)

Not sure if all of this could be coded in though, but it would make teamplay and the whole ethos of squads work better ?

Interesting to hear other comments though?

[da.SPAWN]

UK_Force']
1. You have to Join a Squad - otherwise you can only spawn in as Assault

i highly disagree to that, that would be a complete "no play" for me.
normaly i allways try to get in a nice squad but sometimes players or gameplay sucks and than i go alone.
forcing players to something is never a good choice. you as player benefit from a good squad enaugh, punishing the "lone wolfes" is not necessary.

UK_Force']
3. Each squad must have the following as a Maximum:

a. Squad Leader - Spec Ops x 1
b. Assault x 3
c. Medic x 1
d. Engineer x 1
e. AT x 1
f. Support x 1

should be based on the map otherwise AT in Karkand suck
but general limiting Support and Medic is a good idea, gives for example the Medic
class a higher importance, if you have only one in a squad the others have to protect him.

[eggman]

BF2 squads are 6 people, I wonder if there's some underlying reason for that?

I love the idea that you have to be in a squad else, you can only spawn assault.

People will simply create squads tho.

Somehow.... I dunno..... I was wondering if there's a way to incorporate some dimension of the ABR stuff into this?? For example, you can't create a squad unless you are a Seargent.

This has to be carefully thought out tho as it could really make the game unfun for many people. As much as I like the squads and composition dimsnetions of BF2, enforcing them might not be to the taste of the broader audience out there.

I also think that if something like this is implemented as part of PR, then it should be on a map by map basis on a server. By that I mean it would be possible for server admins to disable these rules for the server or for specific maps in rotation.

Anywhoo... just some comments that may or may not be useful discussion fodder.

egg

[dawdler]

The problem is deciding where the fun has taken a beating. Remember, PR fans will undoudtedly come from BF2 and have that as experience. Dont want too many limitations imposed... Many of us simply want a MORE realistic experience (and of course a ton of new equipment ).

So while I agree that something clearly needs to be done about class limitations considering some of the very powerfull weapons in PR, I dont think one should be too much forced into squads.

Squads work best when they work by their own will.

One can always approach it in another matter. Lets say that you always spawn as basic rifleman.
Other kits are available for pickup (thus a limitation).
So two scenarios:
If you pick up an M249, go into combat and die, you go back to a regular rifleman (and someone else can snag the kit unless you take it again).
If you pick up an M249, *join a squad*, go into combat and die, you get to keep the kit upon respawn!

If there is already a guy with support kit in that squad, you cant join it (and the same goes for any other squad/class limitation).

So in the end, that'll do roughly the same as a forced squad system, without force.

[Rhino]

The prob is if u limmit what a player can be it will be less fun for some ppl and new ppl to the mod wont like it from the start and will probaly never get to know its real fun and gameplay.

[UK_Force]

The prob is if u limmit what a player can be it will be less fun for some ppl and new ppl to the mod wont like it from the start and will probaly never get to know its real fun and gameplay.

You have a valid point there - maybe the "join a squad" idea should be left for tournie play?

[Eden]

In general I dont really think its something that needs looking at justnow, the majority of PRMM player join a squad anyway.

[BrokenArrow]

Still, looking ahead is never bad .

I don't think the squad leader should be a spec ops, again I think spec ops should be a faction with in-house classes (SF medic SF marksman etc) I think instead the squad leader should be given a rifle and binocs as well as alot of smoke nades.

Also if possible I think that the sniper squad should be smaller, with say one leader, 2 other snipers a medic and machinegunner who could act in resupply and security of the snipers.

In order to use the engineer class better, I would like to see them be given m16s and the ability to lay mines OR c4 (that takes longer to set up) and give them the ammo supply capacity that would make them necessary. Also the limited ability to repair. Then there could be 1-2 support squads of 2-3 engineers (one being the SL) 2 medics and a machinegunner to cover them if they need to make a dash to a squad in a tough situation. These support squads would move from squad to squad resupplying/repairing and helping out where they can.

I made up this idea as I went along but the main thing I love to see in games is teamwork, and I think something like that can do it.

[Tacamo]

I'd like to see a heavy weapon squad. Three maybe four needed at most. Weapons would vary by map. For example to facilitate the issues with BF2's engine the positions would be modified to fit into the game. For example one special kit would carry the entire weapon, but at the most the player gets is a pistol. He deploys the kit (heavy AT missle/grenade machine gun/heavy machine gun), then special kit number two is needed. He'll be somewhat similar to an engineer. The deployed kit starts out with weak health (disappears at nothing), so it'll immediately need to be worked on by the second person to somewhat assemble the weapon. Third and second person get rifles like number two, but carry a limited amount of ammo dedicated to heavy weapons. The first person will be the only one capable of disassembling the kit.

[Poofyfinger]

Awesome suggestions! Keep them coming!

[visaya]

*Squads should compose of

1x Squad leader - Assault /w Grenade Launcher
1x corpsman (medic) - with the ability to only bandage wounds and stop bleeding.
3x Riflemen - Regular AK/m16 without GL
1x Anti tank or 1x MGer

*this is an accurate scale down of a real USMC squad factoring basic first aid training and corpsmen supplied by the navy.
This would make up the mainstay of the platoon, of course you would have a sniper, engineer, etc but wiith realistic ratios applied to different maps.

And to people that think realism negates fun - you are wrong, by gaining uber realism, people will have to play with more thought with strategy and teamwork.

[eggman]

Hrm.... well in Canada and with most SF units nowadays you have:
2 x SAW
2 x M203
4 x riflemen

typically a medic would be rare to find embedded in a squad as would engineers, snipers and AT weapons.

most snipers operate in pairs with a spotter, rarely embedded as regular grunts. I don't believe many modern military units condone "lone snipers" as was common in the past.

afaik the basis for most modern military squad constructs is an ability to lay down an overwhelming amount of fire, hence, afaik, 2 x SAW is quite common at a squad level.

Personally I think these conversations are a bit moot. This stuff strikes me as not simple to code and potentially very destructive to the appeal of the gameplay.

A simpler perspective might be to limit the # of a particular class on a side by side basis, ideally expressed as a ratio of player population.

Meaning something like for every 4 riflemen you get 1 of medic, saw, at, engineer, sf. But even that is potentially damaging... and confusing to people.

egg

[visaya]

This isnt an sf game. Its an all out war between USMC and a fictional MEC (Middle Eastern Coalition). PR is adding British forces though - I don't know too much about that.

[NikovK]

I am absolutely against forcing players into kits or squads as a hard-coded element. Here's why.

1. Appeal. New players who join their first PRMM game will spawn as a solo rifleman no matter what kit they'd prefer to use. When they join a squad, they will again be forced into a kit, either rifle or specialty. The result of all this pushing around is a negative game experience at the first spawn. Pile on their first SAW-butchering or getting picked off by a half-mile sniper and we may well lose a new player.

2. Creative Gameplay. Forcing players into pre-assigned squads or combat roles removes a large amount of playing space for organized teams. Pre-assigned Rifle or Heavy Weapons squads codifies the tactics and team builds and removes the clan leader's ability to create new tactics or squad layouts. Remember Ender's Game? Where all the armies in Battle School had ten-man platoons against ten-man platoons and battles became textbook affairs? Ender learned to play the game to win, broke into five-man platoons and began to dominate a rigid opponent. The pre-determined standard operating proceedures are just that; standard proceedure. When faced with non-standard situations, soldiers adapt to win their battles. The Germans went into Stalingrad as a rifle-dominated army and immediately scavenged submachine guns from the enemy as they adjusted their tactics. The Panzer tactics they exercised in Poland were adapted to new kinds of battle in the East. The clear divisional order was replaced by the Kampfgruppe. Soldiers adapt, and we must allow that to happen. This is REALITY we are striving for, after all. Which is more real; officers shifting their men and weapons according to mission needs, or magical forces always giving a rifleman two grenades, three clips, and a rifle; squads always having four riflemen, one AT and two SAWs?

3. Balance. On a map-by-map basis, pre-assigned squads and kit limits will start to create balance issues. Maps featuring a lot of armored vehicles will be dominated by them, as only one or two AT troopers will exist per 8-man squad. Similarly, maps or server types which forbid heavy vehicles will render the AT kit completely useless, but still forced on players. Urban maps which strongly favor automatic weapons will be tilted towards the MEC or China, as all of their rifles are full-auto capable while American weapons are not. Without squads forcing kits, US squads would increase their automatic weapon counts to compensate for this; now it is impossible. Likewise, the MEC and Chinese would be at a serious disadvantage in wide, open maps because of their less accurate weapons. A smart Chinese officer would see to it his forces had plenty of designated marksmen, now it is impossible. Players and teams need to be able to adapt their kit loadouts and squad sizes to the requirements of missions and maps to ensure our varied weapons remain balanced. Unless you'd like to spend hours and hours playtesting for optimal mixes on every map ever created and played, of course.

4. REALISM. When the shit hits the fan, fighting men adapt to win. In the Second World War, soldiers on all armies replaced their bolt-action rifles with scavenged semi-automatics and submachine guns. In the boulder-strewn hills of Korea, soldiers requested more and more grenades from their supply lines. In the dense jungles of Vietnam, automatic weapons were prized for immediate firepower at close quarters and special forces troops often went out on missions with AK-47's instead of M-16's.

Realism is being able to adjust and change according to the mission, not being forced into eight-man squads with X automatic rifles and X AT weapons by magical, irresistable regulations. Restrictions on kits in or out of squads should only be through GAMEPLAY BALANCE, with a powerful weapon made vulnerable by weaknesses in other areas which must be complimented by other kits. Kit A kills infantry at long range easily, but is slow-moving, and is vulnerable to close attack. Kit B has AT rockets and a CQB weapon, but can't match Kit A's range and firepower. A squad full of Kit A dominates the fields but dies to tanks, a squad full of Kit B annihilates tanks but dies to Kit A's, and the tactics which develop between mixes of kits and vehicles is were the game lies. When kits, squads and vehicles naturally assume real-world patterns, we have REALISM. When the balance must be forced by unbreakable rules to exist, WE HAVE A BROKEN GAME.

[F.N.G.]

I agree fully. I was an advocate for kit limitations until i read this thread. I was sure it was the way to go. Not anymore. Read the second post.

Click here.

Sorry for "pimping" your thread, NikovK, but it's so good.

[NikovK]

No need to apologize.

[visaya]

Taken from Realism: How we want it

REALISM is not the opposite of GAMEPLAY, a common misconception. The only reason people try to take away from realism is because they die too much for reckless reasons - they suck. However, if the mod is realistic, and the players are all for teamwork and tactics. Then the gameplay will exceed your expectations.

So next time you see someone posting something that strides from realism, question or not if this is someone you want playing your mod. Is he the guy that joins the server, doesn't join a squad, wastes tanks, and loneguns? Well, as the community grows you will get more of them. You shouldn't be scared of losing these "worthless" players because the realism milsim fans are out there waiting for a call.

-Don't exploit the fact that devs are concerned about playerbase to get unrealism built into this mod. Players lost who do not take the time to learn the team strategy behind a game can only enjoy it on a much more simpler and juvenile way. These are the people that only enjoy the mod for the realistic benefits that only promote their personal killing enjoyment, things like the improved sniper rifle, saw, blackhawk minigun compared to their vanilla counterparts. The main point should be that teamwork should be necessary to complete objectives while realism is built into the mod in as much detail as possible within the context of a game.
I have been searching for a realism game hasn't sold out to the masses. I anticipated the release of BF2 for the engine and the 64 player servers and huge mapsizes. I knew the game would appeal to younger ages and I looked forward to a mod that would bring realistic modern combat to this new engine. If I am correct, the purpose of this mod is to bring realism to the bf2 engine. People that want to turn this mod away from realism can actually enjoy other simpler shoot-em-up-semi-realistic games. So why not let the teamwork and realism nuts have this one? Realism and teamwork fans have been waiting for a platform like this to actually have what other engines can't give them. And it's about time a developing team gets it right - which I know is totally possible for PR.

[NikovK]

Since when did real soldiers goose-step to their field manuals?

Oh, that's right. Everyone who lost to Napoleon, Nelson, Don John, Vikings, Edward and Hannibal.

[visaya]

YES, in war there are improvisations. But last time i checked, they couldn't make wine from water. You are forced to use what you deploy with from whats available from your supplier and whats available on the field. Money does not fit for a full army of SAW gunners and Snipers. Snipers work independently and wouldn't be deployed with a battalion, but for the sake of ppl that like snipers, I am alright with 1 sniper per team.

[Eden]

You should read this post I made: http://realitymod.com/forum/showpost.ph ... stcount=27

as Ive already said there, PR isn't AA and it can not become AA. Medics can revive people for a reason in BF2 its not realistic but it is there for a reason. The whole point of PR isn't to make a carbon copy of AA, that game already exists so what would be the point. It is to make a more realistic version of BF2.

I said more realistic not realistic. If you were to remove every unrealistic piece of code from the game it would lose all its fun. There would be no purpose for tanks or helicopters because the game would not last more than 10 minutes.

There would be no purpose for CP's because you would not be able to capture any.

There would be no purpose for large maps because again everyone would be dead before you have a chance to explore them.

I could go on all day, and that's just if you remove the revive ability from the medic.