Project Reality Forums

Portable.Cougar wrote:a few months later, how does the community feel about this topic?

I think pretty much the same.

It's cool if somebody knows what they're doing but not if they don't, regardless if it's APC only or APC+INF.

Perhaps for the sake of argument, we can assume that EVERYBODY knows how to "properly" use an asset and infantry. That might change the dynamic of the arguments.

I suppose all the arguments sum up that in theory both ways (integrated and seperate squads) are great, but in practice it all comes down to how well the assets are actually managed.

Seperate armor squads have the advantage to coordinate firepower, divert resources to squads/areas that need it more, share intel, better communication and cooperation between vehicles, etc. Yet they're prone to asset whores who would rather go kill people than to actually suppor their team. The same goes for mechanized squads: the advantages are there but they are dependent on the human factor.

Which leads to my conclusion that there is no standard best way. It all comes down to the way people are prepared to play and sadly, that often leads to either mechanized squads wasting assets or not using the full potential, or armored squads going off on their own.


Personally I just love being in a tank or heavy APC and providing support for infantry. It feels great to be part of combined operations, using the firepower, smoke or armor of your vehicle to help the infantry advance. It's one of best moments in PR when a pinned down infantry squad cries for help and you roll up your big tank right next to them, shielding them from bullets and deploying a smoke screen so they can revive and regroup while you lay down a wall of suppressive fire with every gun the vehicle has.

Unfortunately I'm apparently one of the few people who do so.

I think squad leaders should be infantry. Not apc gunner or driver.
It's useless. You can't lase or anything.

I feel inhibited from this tactic by most server's rules regarding squad names

I really want to by a squad leader dismount with a APC in tow but it creates such an almighy ruckus when the asset lads get all hissy about who gets to use vehicles.

2 APCs in one squad supporting an 8 man squad is actually more fun, but very hard to get an APC/infantry squad working like that, usually requires squad leaders who are friends/clanmates/known eachother for a while

[R-DEV]Rudd wrote:I feel inhibited from this tactic by most server's rules regarding squad names

I really want to by a squad leader dismount with a APC in tow but it creates such an almighy ruckus when the asset lads get all hissy about who gets to use vehicles.

2 APCs in one squad supporting an 8 man squad is actually more fun, but very hard to get an APC/infantry squad working like that, usually requires squad leaders who are friends/clanmates/known eachother for a while

Its for that reason I bumped this thread, with the hope server admins would take note.

It sure is fun when you can do it.

I see one glaring issue with a MEC Inf squad and that is they run the risk of taking the APC support from another squad that is currently in contact to transport your squad which might be quicker and more effecient with a chopper (and not to forget the ability to receive much needed supplies for FOB/rearming).

If an APC crew is in it for simply to get kills (and you're still somehow simple enough to believe a battle can be won without kills) keep in mind that same crew will have the same mentality just with a shorter leash.

Another comment about INF being able to "protect" the APC easier, well sorry but I see MECH INF squads put their asset at needless risks far to often. The infantry cannot know about a LAT kit unless he has fired or is bad enough to spill out into the line of fire, so ultimately there is no difference between an APC "going through the forests alone" and the one you brought within 200 meters of the enemy infantry. You cannot know what you cannot see, and that will always get an APC killed with or without infantry next to you.

Differentiate APCs and IFV first.

Since APCs typically have lesser combat capabilities yet pretty decent mobility/speed, to me it seems ok that there could be a single APC squad (much like a chopper trans squad). Unfortunately, most [R-TARD]s out there insist on using them as mobile gun platforms . However, having them attached to individual squads seems just work equally fine, perhaps better, since its a hassle fitting 8 men into two APCs.

On the other hand, I am yet to see a single convincing argument as to why IFVs should have their own squad. These things literally need an infantry detachment to survive, they need to be within an infantry squad (the secrets in the name, infantry fighting vehicle). They need the INF's ears for enemy armour. They need the INF's eyes and rifles to spot and deal with AT threats. Only an engineer can deal with mines. They need the INF to cap flags. They need the INF to pop caches. They need INF to carry AA. They need the INF for recon/coms. They need INF o enter buildings. They need INF to arrest civis. They need INF to place map markers. The list goes on.
IFVs are -force multipliers-, but weak units on their own.

Again, [R-TARD]s seem to think that they are mini tanks. Once you realise that every asset in PR is there to support or augment infantry operations (to varying degrees), the more you'll be able to achieve in game and the better the teamwork/gameplay experience will be.

Servers that do not allow priority and autonomy of MECH INF squads in their rules do so for two reasons:
(1) They "haven't really thought about it, I guess".
OR
(2) They're not concerned with the quality of gameplay/teamwork on their server. Their priority is to selfishly reserve assets for their clan, as if their server is their own private colosseum to slaughter public players in.

Thats the bottom line.







----
To Murphy,

Murphy wrote:I see one glaring issue with a MEC Inf squad and that is they run the risk of taking the APC support from another squad that is currently in contact to transport your squad which might be quicker and more effecient with a chopper (and not to forget the ability to receive much needed supplies for FOB/rearming).

Thats not a failure of the MECH INF doctrine, thats a failure of SLs not communicating with each other (which is a failure at the entire game). Simple squadwork is old news, proper teamwork is what wins games. If either SLs had any brains, they would ask for/offer IFVs to those who need them most. Team communication.

Murphy wrote:If an APC crew is in it for simply to get kills (and you're still somehow simple enough to believe a battle can be won without kills) keep in mind that same crew will have the same mentality just with a shorter leash.

Again, you've described a player discrepancy. "If an APC crew is in it for kills" then the problem starts there, in the players' mind. At least a MECHINF SL would have the authority to kick the useless crew from the squad, or swap his more experienced INF into the crew role. After all, its going to effect his squad the most if his crew is rubbish.

Murphy wrote:Another comment about INF being able to "protect" the APC easier, well sorry but I see MECH INF squads put their asset at needless risks far to often. The infantry cannot know about a LAT kit unless he has fired or is bad enough to spill out into the line of fire, so ultimately there is no difference between an APC "going through the forests alone" and the one you brought within 200 meters of the enemy infantry. You cannot know what you cannot see, and that will always get an APC killed with or without infantry next to you.

You've actually outlined several issues and seem to be addressing them as if they are the same thing.

That's very vague and subjective. The INF are the most important unit in the game (and warfare in general), as they are the ones who win rounds (caches, flags. Not counting Vehicle Warfare, which excludes INF altogether). Yes, they can better absorb losses (revive), cost less tickets a piece, are more plentiful, but their success is most important. But ultimately, if the risk is needless, thats incompetence of the SL to properly dictate to the IFV or the IFV's inability to process/follow orders. That, or you simply have to recognise the enemy is superior.

Thats just untrue. MECH INF can be in 6 places at once, where an IFV just one. Thats ahead, behind, to the flanks, above and below, over hills and round corners, through doors and down holes. Thats allot of places to look and an IFV just cant cover that. The INF have the ability and the obligation to patrol ahead and map/eliminate threats along the way, calling on the IFV's assistance when appropriate. Even once the LAT does fire, the INF have the eyes and ears to locate the firing position, and the means to eliminate it before the crucial 2nd shot.

I'm not sure why you've picked such a specific scenario as evidence for a general point, and I'm not sure I understand it. All I will add is that varying terrain hugely changes the relationship between MECH INF and the IFV. Armoured vehicles are notoriously disadvantaged at fighting in dense woodlands.


...mongol...

You don't need a mech inf squad when your not an idiot and can communicate with other sl's and the commander. NUFF SAID

Even though i say this i still like mech inf squads and think they work, but yeahhhh , l2 communicate with people.

[R-MOD]Mongolian_dude wrote: You've actually outlined several issues and seem to be addressing them as if they are the same thing.

Not that I don't agree with you, but the problem is that IFVs on their own will generally keep their distance and won't get into CQC as easily, which obviously is the worst environment for IVFs. Mechanized squads however will take IFVs into CQC, because they create a false feeling of less vulnurability for the vehicles.

This is rightfully based on real life effectiveness of combined operations, but it doesn't work out as well in PR. Combat, shooting and movement are too fast and chaotic for the infantry to do their job as a patrol for the supporting IFV.

IRL engagements are skirmishes, with a lot of shooting and less casualties. In PR engagements are sniper-fights where entire squads can get killed in a matter of seconds. It greatly reduces the effectiveness of combined arms.

'Xander[nl wrote:;1976720']Not that I don't agree with you, but the problem is that IFVs on their own will generally keep their distance and won't get into CQC as easily, which obviously is the worst environment for IVFs. Mechanized squads however will take IFVs into CQC, because they create a false feeling of less vulnurability for the vehicles.

This is rightfully based on real life effectiveness of combined operations, but it doesn't work out as well in PR. Combat, shooting and movement are too fast and chaotic for the infantry to do their job as a patrol for the supporting IFV.

IRL engagements are skirmishes, with a lot of shooting and less casualties. In PR engagements are sniper-fights where entire squads can get killed in a matter of seconds. It greatly reduces the effectiveness of combined arms.

IFVs enter CQC in real life because they have to, which is the type of combat we are trying to reflect in PR. Fallujah, Hue, Allepo.

IFVs do venture into urban terrain and prove very effective in game also, however they are seldom employed in appropriate, restrained ways. I do agree that they are not as 100% effective as they are IRL, because we don't have a proper explosives model in PR. For example, if a moving IFV knows their is an RPG on the 2nd floor of a building, he can trash the RPG team by simply firing at the building. However, in PR explosives do not penetrate the thinest of brick walls, so the gunner is required to get rounds into windows without weapon stabilisation either. so vehicles will never be as effective as they are IRL (I've argued the urgency of this point to the PR Team for some time, but it hasn't been adopted).
Nonetheless, the ammo, protection to small arms, heavy firepower, kit-issuing, smoke launchers, rallypoint support, thermal imaging offer so much to urban fighting INF. As long as the crew and the MECH INF SL are intelligent about it their movement and exposure, allot can be done. An IFV isnt an answer to all one's problems, its a close support asset to compliment an INF squad.


...mongol...

Great discussion, I would have to agree with the points Mongol raised.

I'd like to start incorporating this more into my own squad leading. I'm always playing with infantry but am afraid to incorporate that APC/IFV sitting at main due to being banned/kicked. I have to say that the concept of the assets augmenting the infantry seems a bit lost on players at times but I suppose one could chalk that up to the pub play.